Banyan v. Sikorski
- Rochon
- 1:17-cv-04942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Banyan v. Sikorski, Judge Rochon approved narrow redactions to protect grand-jury secrecy and ordered the summary-judgment opinion made public.
The ruling affects the parties’ access to the May 6 summary-judgment opinion and the public’s access to that opinion, which will be issued with approved redactions.
What happened
In Banyan v. Sikorski, the court had filed its earlier opinion on the defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment entirely under seal because it discussed state grand-jury testimony and sealed materials.
The defendants proposed redactions, and Jonathan C. Banyan agreed to them. The court considered the public’s right to inspect documents used in summary-judgment proceedings, along with the interests in grand-jury secrecy and cooperation between state and federal courts.
Judge Rochon approved the proposed redactions because they were limited, concealed no publicly available information, and were necessary to protect those interests. The court ordered a redacted version of the earlier opinion to be issued publicly.
The detailed version
- Banyan v. Sikorski · No. 1:17-cv-04942
- Rochon
- May 13, 2024
Background
On May 6, 2024, the Court granted the defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment. Because that opinion discussed state grand-jury testimony and materials the parties had filed under seal, the Court initially sealed the entire opinion. The Court then directed the parties to submit their positions on which portions, if any, should remain sealed.
The defendants submitted proposed redactions on May 10, 2024, and Plaintiff Jonathan C. Banyan consented to them.
Public Access and Redactions
The Court explained that documents used in summary-judgment motions generally should not remain sealed absent compelling reasons. It also recognized that federal courts are not bound by state law protecting grand-jury secrecy, while noting the importance of cooperation between state and federal governments and the continuing, though reduced, interest in protecting grand-jury secrecy after a grand jury has ended.
The Court presumed that the opinion was subject to the more demanding constitutional right of public access. Under that standard, sealing is allowed only when necessary to protect important interests and when the restrictions are narrowly tailored. The Court found that the proposed redactions met that standard, protected grand-jury secrecy and state-federal comity, and concealed no publicly available information.
Ruling
Judge Rochon approved the redactions proposed at ECF No. 313-1. The Court ordered that a redacted version of the May 6 opinion issue publicly forthwith.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.