Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 19, 2023

McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump

Full caption

Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-09936
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In McKoy v. Trump Corporation, Judge Cave denied Plaintiffs’ request to seal a court filing and ordered it unsealed.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Plaintiffs’ request to seal the filing, Defendants as the parties that had designated the information confidential, and public access to the court docket. The document at ECF No. 511 was ordered unsealed.

What happened

Catherine McKoy, Markus Frazier, and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump concerned Plaintiffs’ request to keep parts of a court filing secret.

Plaintiffs asked to seal portions of a filing seeking to prevent Defendants’ experts from testifying or using certain materials. Plaintiffs said Defendants had designated the information confidential under a protective order, and Plaintiffs took no position on sealing. Defendants did not provide a reason for sealing or respond to the request.

The court denied the sealing request and directed the Clerk to unseal the filing and close the sealing request. United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump · No. 1:18-cv-09936
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
July 19, 2023

Background

Plaintiffs requested permission to file under seal portions of a letter-motion asking the court to preclude Defendants’ experts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). Plaintiffs said the portions contained information that Defendants had designated confidential under the parties’ protective order. Plaintiffs also stated that Defendants were the party that designated the information and that Plaintiffs took no position on sealing.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that Defendants had not provided a basis for sealing and had not otherwise responded to the request. The order cited the presumption that judicial documents are open to the public and referenced decisions explaining that a confidentiality agreement alone does not overcome that presumption.

Ruling

The court denied the request to seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to unseal the document filed at ECF No. 511 and to close ECF No. 509. Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.