Pierre v. City Of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-05116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pierre v. City of New York, Judge Figueredo denied plaintiffs’ sealing request and allowed a renewed submission explaining why sealing was appropriate.
The plaintiffs, Bloomberg L.P., and the public’s access to Exhibit 2 in the case.
What happened
In Pierre v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked to file Exhibit 2 to their motion to amend the complaint under seal because Bloomberg L.P. had designated the exhibit as confidential. They proposed that only court personnel and attorneys of record could view it.
The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard for restricting public access to court records. It ruled that relying generally on the parties’ confidentiality agreement and protective order did not justify sealing, because that did not specifically overcome the public’s presumed right of access.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the request to seal and allowed the plaintiffs to submit a renewed letter explaining specifically why sealing or redaction was appropriate. The clerk was directed to keep the filing under seal pending a renewed motion.
The detailed version
- Pierre v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05116
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 7, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs asked for permission to file Exhibit 2 to their motion for leave to file an amended complaint under seal. Defendant Bloomberg L.P. had designated the exhibit as “Confidential.” The plaintiffs proposed limiting access to court personnel and the attorneys of record, citing the parties’ confidentiality agreement.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. for requests to restrict public access to judicial documents. The court relied on its prior order, which explained that broad references to a protective order do not establish that sealing is justified. The existence of a protective order, by itself, does not show that complete reliance on it is reasonable or overcome the presumption of public access.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the request to seal. The court permitted the plaintiffs to submit a renewed letter motion addressing sealing or redaction and explaining specifically why that relief was appropriate under the governing standard. The court directed that the filing identified as ECF No. 301 remain under seal while a renewed motion was pending. The opinion text appears truncated after stating that the request was “DENIED” and includes the word “prejudice”; it does not clearly state whether the denial was with or without prejudice, so no such qualifier is included here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.