Robinson v. De Niro

Background

The parties filed several motions asking the court to keep portions of documents under seal or to redact them from public filings connected to the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The requested redactions concerned personal contact information, health-related information, financial information, a pseudonym used by Robert De Niro, and sensitive information about nonparties, including De Niro’s minor children.

Graham Chase Robinson separately asked to redact the substance of a June 11, 2019 settlement proposal and references to it in other filings. The defendants opposed those redactions. The defendants also sought redactions concerning De Niro’s drinking, a Viagra prescription, the timing of his relationship with Chen, and certain financial information.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial documents—documents relevant to the court’s work—usually carry a presumption of public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. Documents submitted with summary-judgment motions receive a strong presumption of access. The court must balance that presumption against privacy interests and other competing concerns, using narrowly tailored redactions when appropriate.

The court also rejected Robinson’s argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 408 automatically required the settlement proposal to remain hidden. That rule generally limits the use of settlement discussions to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, but it permits use for another purpose. The court found the settlement proposal relevant for purposes including providing context for events and communications related to Robinson’s retaliation claim.

Rulings

The court granted the parties’ joint request to redact home addresses, non-public email addresses and phone numbers, health-related information, confidential financial information, De Niro’s pseudonym, and sensitive information concerning nonparties, including his minor children.

The court denied Robinson’s request to redact the substance of the June 11, 2019 settlement proposal and references to it. The court found that the information was part of the summary-judgment record, had been considered in deciding the summary-judgment motions, and provided necessary context for Robinson’s claims. The court stated that any specific admissibility issue under Rule 408 could be addressed at the motion-in-limine or trial stage.

The court denied the defendants’ request to redact information about De Niro’s Viagra prescription. It found that the information was a key fact in Robinson’s gender-discrimination claim and that the privacy interest was limited because consistent information was already publicly available.

The court granted the defendants’ request to redact the disputed financial information in full. It found that financial information implicated significant privacy interests and was not relevant to the court’s decision on the summary-judgment motions.

For information about De Niro’s drinking, the court granted the parties’ agreed redactions and also granted additional redactions concerning medical conditions. It denied the remaining requested redactions concerning occasions when De Niro drank or was allegedly drunk, finding that the public-access interest outweighed the privacy concerns.

The court granted the parties’ agreed redactions concerning information about the beginning of De Niro’s relationship with Chen. It denied the defendants’ additional requested redactions because the relationship was central to Robinson’s retaliation and discrimination claims, Chen was not an innocent third party for purposes of those claims, and similar information was already public.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman concluded that the motions to seal were granted in part and denied in part. The parties were directed to refile or unseal documents consistent with the order by June 2, 2023. The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 301, 323, 325, 330, 332, 349, 355, 358, and 367.