Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:18-cv-08048
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, Judge Vyskocil denied Iacovacci’s objection to a sealing order.
Paul Iacovacci, the defendants, and the public’s access to documents filed in the case.
What happened
In Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, Paul Iacovacci objected to a magistrate judge’s order sealing certain documents, briefs, and deposition testimony. The sealed materials had previously been filed publicly in New York state court actions.
Iacovacci argued that the materials should not have been sealed because they were publicly available. The defendants opposed his objection, and the court also noted that Iacovacci had not identified any harm caused by the sealing order.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that public availability weighs against sealing but does not by itself prevent a court from sealing documents. She found no clear error or legal violation and denied Iacovacci’s objection.
The detailed version
- Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-08048
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Paul Iacovacci filed a partial objection to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s June 26, 2023 order on the defendants’ requests to seal documents. The sealing order covered certain documents, as well as briefs and deposition testimony quoting those documents. Iacovacci stated that the materials were publicly available because they had previously been filed in New York state court actions. The defendants opposed the objection.
Standard of review
Because the sealing order did not decide any claim or defense, the court reviewed it under the standard for a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter. Under that standard, the district court may adopt the ruling unless its factual or legal basis is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a document’s public availability weighs against sealing, but does not decide the sealing question by itself. The court concluded that Magistrate Judge Figueredo did not clearly err or act contrary to law by sealing the documents despite their prior public availability. The court also noted that Iacovacci had not identified any prejudice caused by the sealing order. It cautioned him that unnecessarily extending routine sealing-related litigation could misuse court resources and stated that the sealing order would be reconsidered at trial, when different rules would apply to what is treated as part of the public record.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Iacovacci’s objection to Magistrate Judge Figueredo’s sealing order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.