Parker v. Bursor
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Parker v. Bursor, Judge Clarke temporarily granted Defendants’ request to seal objections and Plaintiff’s response to a sealed report and recommendation.
The order affects Plaintiff, Defendants Scott Bursor and Bursor & Fisher P.A., their attorneys, court personnel, and public access to the specified filings.
What happened
In Parker v. Bursor, Defendants Scott Bursor and Bursor & Fisher P.A. asked to file their objections to a sealed report and recommendation under seal and to require Plaintiff’s response to be sealed as well. The report and recommendation concerned whether Plaintiff’s complaint should remain sealed.
Defendants argued that sealing was needed because the filings discussed allegations they described as scandalous, irrelevant, and false. They also argued that public access should be limited while the court considered the sealing issue and Defendants’ anticipated motions concerning the complaint.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke temporarily granted the letter-motion to seal. The court ordered any response by Plaintiff to Defendants’ objections to be filed under seal, directed that ECF No. 63 remain sealed, and restricted access to attorneys appearing for the parties and court personnel. The court will later assess whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Bursor · No. 1:24-cv-00245
- Clarke
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
Plaintiff initially filed this matter without a lawyer in New York Supreme Court. Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York before Plaintiff filed a complaint. Defendants then asked for an order requiring the complaint to be filed under seal, based on their assertions about the allegations Plaintiff intended to include.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on January 24, 2024. The report and recommendation was filed under seal and required any complaint filed by Plaintiff to be temporarily kept under seal while the court considered Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 22, 2024, and the complaint remained under seal. The court directed that arguments about keeping the complaint sealed be made in objections to the report and recommendation.
The Sealing Request
Defendants submitted a letter-motion asking for permission to file their objections under seal and asking the court to require any response by Plaintiff to also be filed under seal. Defendants argued that briefing discussing the sealed report and recommendation and complaint should remain sealed so that the existing sealing orders would have practical effect. They also asked that sealing continue at least until the court decided anticipated motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f), which Defendants said would challenge the complaint.
Defendants further argued that the materials did not deserve the usual presumption of public access because, in their view, they did not concern matters relevant to the court’s work and contained sensational allegations. These were Defendants’ arguments in support of the request, not rulings by the court on the allegations or on the anticipated Rule 12 motions.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke temporarily granted the letter-motion to seal. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when reviewing the report and recommendation and the objections to it.
The court ordered that any response by Plaintiff to Defendants’ objections be filed under seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 62 and keep ECF No. 63 under seal. Access was restricted to attorneys appearing for the parties and court personnel. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute or state a final decision about whether the materials would remain sealed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.