Bulgari v. Bulgari
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-05072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ilaria Bulgari v. Veronica Bulgari, Judge Lehrburger ordered some pleading material unsealed while keeping specified passages, photographs, and amounts redacted.
Ilaria Bulgari and Veronica Bulgari, including the privacy interests of parties and nonparties whose information appeared in the pleading.
What happened
In Ilaria Bulgari v. Veronica Bulgari, the court considered whether parts of Veronica Bulgari’s Answer and Counterclaims should remain hidden from the public. Ilaria Bulgari also asked to keep certain portions sealed.
The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-step test for sealing court records: whether the material is part of the court’s records, how strong the public’s right to see it is, and whether privacy or other interests outweigh that right. The court ordered many redactions removed but kept some passages, photographs, and dollar amounts redacted.
The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute. It specified which portions of the pleading could remain sealed and directed the Clerk to terminate the letter motion. United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued the order.
The detailed version
- Bulgari v. Bulgari · No. 1:22-cv-05072
- Lorna Schofield
- July 14, 2023
Background
This order addressed Defendant Veronica Bulgari’s letter motion at Dkt. 268 and Plaintiff Ilaria Bulgari’s request at Dkt. 283 to keep certain portions of Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims under seal. The opinion states that some of the material came from discovery produced by Plaintiff.
Legal standard
The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-part test for sealing judicial documents. First, the court determines whether the material is a judicial document, meaning a document relevant to the exercise of judicial power. Second, it assesses the strength of the common-law presumption that court records should be available to the public. Third, it balances that presumption against competing considerations, including the privacy interests of parties and nonparties. The court noted that answers and counterclaims are judicial records subject to a presumption of public access, and that a confidentiality agreement by itself is not enough to justify sealing.
Rulings on the redactions
The court ordered the following:
- All redacted material in paragraphs 37, 49, 53–54, 61, 64, 67, 70–74, 89–90, 92–93, 96–98, 104–105 was to be unredacted. The opinion states that Plaintiff consented to this disclosure and that the information did not otherwise merit continued sealing.
- Paragraphs 38–39, 46, 51, 62, 100, and 103 were to be unredacted in their entirety.
- In paragraph 52, the redacted language beginning with “satisfied” and ending with “owed” was to be unredacted.
- In paragraphs 57 and 58, the text was to be unredacted, but the photographs were to remain redacted.
- In paragraph 59, the text was to be unredacted, but the specific dollar amounts and the photograph were to remain redacted.
- In paragraph 60, the words “Threat of litigation” in the first line were to be unredacted; the other redactions were to remain.
- Paragraph 63 was to remain redacted.
- In paragraph 68, the phrase beginning with “hundreds” and ending with “in” was to remain redacted; the other redactions were to be removed.
- In paragraph 119, the phrase beginning with “tens” and ending with “dollars” was to remain redacted; the other redactions were to be removed.
The court requested that the Clerk terminate the letter motion at Dkt. 268. United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order. The order concerned public access to portions of a pleading and did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.