Rosario v. Community Housing Management Corp.

Background

This opinion addresses two related actions: Tanya Rosario and others’ action, No. 7:22-CV-9855, and Chenelle Saintil and Denise Saintil’s action, No. 7:22-CV-9857. In both actions, the plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints and asked to submit portions of those motions under seal, meaning unavailable for public access.

The requested sealing covered the entire “Facts Common to All Counts” section of each proposed amended complaint; paragraphs 7 through 57 of Marc W. Garber’s supporting affidavits; the factual statements and portions of the legal arguments in the supporting memoranda; and Exhibits F through DDD, totaling 51 exhibits. The plaintiffs explained that they had redacted material that defendants might claim was protected by a confidentiality order.

The Community Defendants identified Exhibits I, K, Q, T, and V as materials they wanted to keep sealed. Exhibits I, K, Q, and V contained letters from non-party tenants. Exhibit T contained correspondence between Defendant Conroy and Defendant Feliciano. The Community Defendants argued that the documents were not judicial documents, that disclosure could invade non-parties’ privacy, and that disclosure of Exhibit T could cause financial and reputational harm.

Legal standard

The court explained that documents filed with a complaint and relevant to the court’s work are generally “judicial documents” subject to a strong presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, a party must provide document-specific findings showing that sealing is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly limited to what is necessary.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the materials submitted with the motions to amend were judicial documents. It found the plaintiffs’ sealing requests significantly too broad and inadequately supported because they sought to seal entire sections of pleadings and legal memoranda, 50 affidavit paragraphs, and more than 50 exhibits without particularized explanations for each document.

The court also found that the Community Defendants’ letters did not clearly explain whether they sought to seal materials beyond the five identified exhibits or maintain redactions in the proposed amended complaints, memoranda, and affidavits. The court therefore allowed the Community Defendants to submit their own sealing request for those other materials, provided they justified the request and proposed narrowly tailored redactions.

For Exhibits I, K, Q, and V, the court found that the privacy interests of non-party tenants justified redacting identifying information, including names, addresses, and telephone numbers. The court did not allow broader sealing of those exhibits. For Exhibit T, the court held that possible financial or reputational harm to Defendant Conroy was not enough to overcome the presumption of public access.

Disposition and next steps

The plaintiffs’ motions to seal were DENIED without prejudice to renewal by the Community Defendants. The Community Defendants’ letter responses were treated as requests to seal Exhibits I, K, Q, T, and V, and those requests were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Exhibits I, K, Q, and V may be redacted only to remove identifying information of non-party tenants. Exhibit T must not be sealed.

The Community Defendants were permitted to submit any renewed sealing request concerning the other materials by March 5, 2024, but not to renew requests concerning Exhibits I, K, Q, T, and V. If they did not do so, the plaintiffs were directed to refile their motions to amend by March 8, 2024, following the court’s instructions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the identified sealing motions in both actions.