McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump

Background

The plaintiffs filed several motions asking the court to seal or redact papers and exhibits connected to their motion for class certification and their motions concerning defense expert testimony. The defendants, ACN Opportunity, LLC, and other non-parties had designated some information as confidential under a protective order or during discovery. ACN argued that some of the material contained its non-public, sensitive business and financial information. The plaintiffs generally took no position on confidentiality designations made by the defendants or non-parties, while identifying some materials that they believed did not need to remain sealed.

The court noted that an October 17, 2023, order denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied as moot their motion to bar testimony from Dr. Robert A. Peterson and to preclude a supplemental declaration from Dr. Joseph F. Hair. The parties later agreed to unseal or revise redactions to certain materials, and a November 3, 2023, order directed those changes. This order addressed the remaining sealing motions at Dkt. Nos. 529, 550, 560, 565, and 577.

Legal Standard

The court applied a three-step test for sealing documents. First, it asked whether the materials were judicial documents—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, it assessed the strength of the public-access presumption based on the materials’ role in the court’s exercise of its authority. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests, such as protecting privacy or specific business information.

The court stated that sealing requires specific findings showing that closure is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. General or conclusory claims of possible harm are not enough. A contractual confidentiality designation, standing alone, also does not overcome the public’s presumptive right to access judicial documents.

Rulings

The court granted the sealing motions at Dkt. Nos. 565 and 577. Those motions concerned the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Dr. Peterson’s opinions and preclude Dr. Hair’s supplemental declaration. Because the underlying expert-related motion had been denied as moot, the court concluded that the presumption of public access was weaker and could be overcome.

The court denied without prejudice to renewal the sealing motions at Dkt. Nos. 529, 550, and 560. Those motions concerned the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court found that the supporting letters offered only conclusory statements about potential harm, which did not overcome the strong presumption of public access for those filings.

The court ordered that all documents currently filed under seal remain sealed for the time being. By November 28, 2023, ACN or any party could request continued sealing of documents covered by Dkt. Nos. 529, 550, and 560, unless the documents had already been made entirely public under the November 3 order. Any request had to explain the basis for sealing sufficiently under Second Circuit law. If no timely request was filed, the relevant documents were to be filed publicly. The court clarified that this order did not concern separate sealing motions connected to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion at Dkt. Nos. 572, 601, and 613, which remained pending. The clerk was directed to close the five addressed motions.