Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2024

O'Reilly v. Mackris

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-02377
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In O'Reilly v. Mackris, Judge Rearden ordered the case unsealed and said a decision on the arbitration-confirmation petition would come separately.

Who this affects

William J. O'Reilly and Andrea Mackris, whose sealed federal court proceeding was ordered unsealed; the confirmation petition remained undecided in the provided text.

What happened

O'Reilly v. Mackris concerns a petition to confirm an arbitration award involving William J. O'Reilly and Andrea Mackris. The parties had previously agreed that court proceedings connected to their arbitration would be kept confidential. O'Reilly said Mackris no longer objected to making the case public.

Mackris had opposed deciding the confirmation request in secret, while saying she did not oppose confirmation of the award itself. O'Reilly therefore asked the court to unseal the case, confirm the award, and enter judgment.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered the case and its documents unsealed. The order said that a decision on the petition to confirm the arbitration award would be issued separately; the opinion text does not include that later decision.

The detailed version

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

Case
O'Reilly v. Mackris · No. 1:23-cv-02377
Judge
Rearden
Date
Mar. 4, 2024

Background

William J. O'Reilly petitioned the court to confirm an arbitration award and enter judgment on it. The opinion text states that O'Reilly and Andrea Mackris participated in a confidential arbitration from 2021 to 2022 concerning compliance with a 2004 Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release. According to O'Reilly's counsel, the arbitration panel upheld that agreement, which the letter says remains valid and enforceable.

The agreement provided that judicial proceedings connected with the arbitration—including a request to confirm an arbitration award—would be filed under seal and would not be publicized. O'Reilly initially filed the confirmation proceeding under seal.

Positions of the Parties

O'Reilly stated that Mackris wanted the confirmation proceeding unsealed and therefore said he did not oppose unsealing. O'Reilly also said that Mackris did not oppose confirmation of the award in substance, but objected to having the court decide confirmation and entry of judgment in secret.

Mackris's April 12, 2023 letter stated that she opposed O'Reilly's request to keep the confirmation proceeding secret. She argued that the public had a right to know about the request and asked the court not to confirm the award before deciding the sealing issue. The text does not state that Mackris opposed confirmation of the award on its merits.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered the Clerk of Court to unseal the case and all documents in it. The order allowed either party to ask to file particular documents under seal or with redactions under the court's individual rules. It also stated that a decision on the unopposed petition to confirm the arbitration award would issue separately.

The opinion text provided here does not contain a ruling granting or denying the petition to confirm the award, an order entering judgment, or a decision on whether the award should be vacated, modified, or corrected. The ruling described here is the order unsealing the proceeding.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.