Richtone Design Group, L.L.C. v. Kelly
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-01606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Richtone v. Kelly, Judge Krause denied Richtone’s motion to seal discovery responses, finding public access outweighed its unsupported claimed harm.
Richtone Design Group, L.L.C. was required to leave the discovery responses publicly accessible on the docket; Mary Sullivan Kelly and True Pilates Boston LLC opposed the sealing request. The order addressed public access to the filed discovery materials, not the parties’ underlying copyright or unfair-competition claims.
What happened
Richtone Design Group, L.L.C. v. Kelly concerns discovery responses that Defendants filed publicly with a request asking Richtone to provide clearer answers. Richtone asked the court to seal those responses, arguing that public access could help spread copyrighted photographs and that the responses were marked confidential.
The court treated the responses as judicial documents because they were relevant to deciding the discovery dispute. Although the public-access presumption was less weighty for discovery materials than for documents used at trial or in major motions, Richtone still had to show specific reasons for sealing them. The court said the protective order did not automatically require confidential discovery materials to be sealed, and a confidentiality label alone was not enough.
The court denied the motion to seal and directed the Clerk to terminate it. Judge Andrew E. Krause concluded that Richtone had not identified a specific commercial harm or specific images that justified restricting public access.
The detailed version
- Richtone Design Group, L.L.C. v. Kelly · No. 7:22-cv-01606
- Kenneth Karas
- May 1, 2023
Background
Richtone Design Group, L.L.C. sued Mary Sullivan Kelly and True Pilates Boston LLC for alleged copyright infringement and unfair competition. Defendants asserted copyright-related counterclaims against Richtone and Sean Gallagher. In connection with Defendants’ motion to compel discovery, Defendants filed Richtone’s “Confidential Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admission (1-86)” on the public docket.
Richtone objected to the public filing and moved to seal the responses. It argued that the materials were marked confidential under the parties’ protective order and that public access could give Defendants’ supporters another opportunity to download and distribute copyrighted photographs. Richtone did not submit a reply after the court offered it that opportunity.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access. A document is a judicial document when it is relevant to the court’s performance of its judicial function and useful in the judicial process. A court may seal such a document only when sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The party seeking sealing bears the burden of showing that it is justified.
The presumption of access is reduced for materials filed in connection with discovery disputes compared with materials introduced at trial or filed with dispositive motions. Even so, the party seeking to seal discovery materials must provide specific and substantial reasons for doing so.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the admission responses were judicial documents because they were filed in connection with a motion to compel and were relevant to the court’s decision on that motion.
The court rejected Richtone’s argument that the protective order required sealing. The order expressly stated that designating discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” did not create a presumption that the information would be filed under seal. The court also explained that the parties’ confidentiality designation by itself did not overcome the public-access presumption once the materials became judicial documents.
The court further found that Richtone had not persuasively identified a competing interest that outweighed public access. Richtone made general assertions about the possible online distribution of copyrighted photographs but did not explain the harm to a particular commercial interest or identify specific images in its motion. The court also noted Richtone’s statement in the responses that the images were only “probably subject to copyright,” and not necessarily copyrighted by Richtone. The court therefore concluded that Richtone had not met its burden to show that the responses should be sealed.
Disposition
The court denied Richtone’s motion to seal, ECF No. 43, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The order did not decide the underlying copyright or unfair-competition claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.