Pierre v. City Of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-05116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pierre v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Figueredo denied Bloomberg’s motion to seal Exhibit C without prejudice.
Bloomberg L.P., the parties, and the public’s access to Exhibit C.
What happened
In Pierre v. City of New York, Bloomberg asked to keep Exhibit C to its opposition to Burbran Pierre’s request to amend the complaint from public view.
The court said court filings generally must be publicly accessible and that a confidentiality label or protective order alone was not enough to justify sealing. Bloomberg had not given specific reasons showing that sealing was necessary and narrowly limited.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the motion to seal without prejudice, allowed Bloomberg to file a renewed motion explaining its reasons, and directed the clerk to keep Exhibit C sealed temporarily.
The detailed version
- Pierre v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05116
- Andrew Carter
- June 6, 2023
Background
Bloomberg L.P. submitted a letter motion asking the court to seal Exhibit C to Bloomberg’s opposition to Burbran Pierre’s motion for permission to file an amended complaint. The exhibit was filed as ECF No. 328-3, and the sealing request was ECF No. 326.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents—filed materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in the legal process—are generally presumed to be available to the public under the common law and the First Amendment. To overcome that presumption, the party seeking secrecy must provide specific reasons showing that sealing is necessary to protect important interests and that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, meaning no broader than necessary. Courts may seal or redact commercially sensitive or confidential business information when those requirements are met. A confidentiality designation or protective order, by itself, does not satisfy this standard.
Ruling
The court found that Bloomberg had only asserted that the documents were designated “Confidential” and had not specifically explained why sealing was justified or addressed the public-access presumption. The court therefore DENIED without prejudice the letter motion to seal. Bloomberg was permitted to submit a renewed motion to seal or redact that specifically addressed the applicable standard by June 13, 2023. The clerk was directed to keep ECF No. 328-3 under seal while awaiting a renewed motion and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 326.
Effect
The ruling concerned public access to Exhibit C and did not decide the merits of Pierre’s motion to amend the complaint or the underlying claims. The opinion repeatedly refers to “Armouth’s” letter motion even though it identifies Bloomberg as the party seeking to seal the exhibit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.