Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:16-cv-03572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Galgano v. County of Putnam, Judge Karas denied without prejudice Galgano’s request to seal exhibits for lack of specific support.
George Galgano, the defendants, Adam Levy as counterclaimant, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits filed in the case.
What happened
In Galgano v. County of Putnam, George Galgano asked to file certain exhibits under seal in connection with pending summary-judgment motions. He said the exhibits included privileged, confidential, irrelevant, and personal information, including financial information and text messages.
The defendants and Adam Levy opposed the request. Galgano argued that many materials were not cited in the summary-judgment papers, included communications covered by a protective order, or involved information belonging to him or people not connected to the case.
The court denied the application without prejudice because Galgano did not identify specifically what information should be sealed or explain the basis for sealing it. Judge Karas directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion, while leaving open the possibility of a renewed application.
The detailed version
- Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York · No. 7:16-cv-03572
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
George Galgano moved for permission to file unredacted versions of several joint exhibits and exhibits attached to Adam Levy’s counterclaim declaration under seal. The materials included deposition transcripts, large spreadsheets containing text messages, and documents created from those text messages. Galgano asked that the materials be treated as confidential under the case’s protective order and applicable federal and local rules.
Galgano argued that the exhibits contained privileged communications, previously undisclosed financial and business information, personal or intimate information, and material irrelevant to the pending summary-judgment motions. He also argued that some exhibits involved his replevin claim—the claim concerning the return of property—and that public disclosure could prejudice that claim. The defendants and Counterclaimant Levy opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access, including materials filed with dispositive motions such as summary-judgment motions. The party seeking to seal materials bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified.
The court found that Galgano had not met that burden. The court characterized his descriptions of the information as broad and general and noted that he did not identify specifically what the information was, apart from one reference to a telephone number. The court stated that broad allegations of harm, without specific examples or reasoning, were insufficient to justify sealing. It suggested that a renewed application could include a chart identifying each requested sealed item and the basis for each request, along with supporting legal authority.
Disposition
The court denied Galgano’s application for leave to file the specified exhibits under seal without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 766. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or the pending summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.