Liu v. The Nielsen Company LLC

Background

Defendants filed a letter-motion to seal Frank Liu’s motion seeking assignment of a judge and the motion’s exhibits. The materials described draft settlement agreements and confidential settlement negotiations concerning the disputes that led to the case. The court had provisionally sealed the materials while considering Defendants’ request.

Liu also asked whether the provisional sealing order prevented him from using the materials in a planned public YouTube video about the settlement negotiations. The court said that sealing only concerned access to materials on the court’s docket and was not an injunction. The court did not decide any claim based on the proposed video because the possible future event might not occur.

Liu further asked whether he could publicly file a motion to strike accusations in Defendants’ reply letter. The court said he could file such a motion through the Pro Se Intake Unit if it did not refer to confidential settlement materials.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. Such documents are materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court held that the motion seeking assignment of a judge was not a judicial document for this purpose because judicial assignment occurs administratively before a district judge makes a ruling or exercises supervisory authority. The court also noted that the case had already been assigned, which made Liu’s motion moot, and that the judge had terminated it.

The court separately held that the presumption of public access to settlement negotiations, draft agreements, and conference statements was negligible or nonexistent. Drafts and negotiations exchanged before an agreement is reached generally play little role in a judge’s exercise of judicial power unless they become part of a final agreement submitted for court action. The interest in encouraging fair and efficient settlements supported keeping those materials confidential.

Liu argued that sealing could undermine New York General Obligations Law § 5-336. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the statute limits an employer’s ability to include nondisclosure terms concerning discrimination claims unless nondisclosure is the complainant’s preference. The statute also sets procedures for proposing such terms. It does not address making settlement offers or settlement-related communications public. The court further noted that any alleged failure to follow the statute was not at issue in this case.

Disposition

Judge Rearden granted Defendants’ letter motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 33 and unseal Defendants’ letter motion, reply, and Liu’s clarification letter, identified as ECF Nos. 33, 37, and 38. Liu’s opposition, ECF Nos. 34–36, was ordered to remain sealed because it described and attached settlement negotiations, draft agreements, and conference statements. The court stated that Liu could file the opposition publicly only after redacting all references to and descriptions of those materials. The order also provided information about a free legal clinic for people representing themselves, while clarifying that filings must continue to be made by the self-represented party through the Pro Se Intake Unit.