Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Insurance Company

Filing 123

ORDER granting 115 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Edward Michael Joyce terminated; granting 121 Motion to Seal Document. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 8/2/2020. (Gold, Steven)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
MADELAINE CHOCOLATE NOVELTIES, INC., :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE CO.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
GOLD, STEVEN M., U.S. Magistrate Judge:

MEMORANDUM &
ORDER
15-CV-5830 (RJD) (SMG)

On June 11, 2020, Jones Day—one of the law firms representing plaintiff Madelaine
Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine”)—moved for leave to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff.
Mot. to Withdraw as Attorney, Dkt. 115. At that time, it appeared that Madelaine might object
and that resolution of the motion would require the intervention of the Court. Accordingly,
although the motion was filed ex parte and in camera, the Court asked plaintiff to explain why
the motion papers submitted by Jones Day should not be publicly filed in their entirety or with
redactions. See Order dated June 11, 2020.
Since that time, Jones Day and plaintiff have reached agreement with respect to Jones
Day’s motion for leave to withdraw, subject to the Court’s ruling that the motion papers remain
under seal. At the Court’s request, Madelaine has submitted a declaration of its Chief
Administrative Officer setting forth the reasons why Madelaine contends it would be prejudiced
by public disclosure of the motion papers. Decl. of Scott Wright, Dkt. 121-1. Madelaine has
also proposed redactions to those papers it asks the Court to permit if public disclosure is
required. Proposed Redactions, Dkt. 121-2 and 121-3. Because, as set forth below, I conclude
that Jones Day’s motion papers are not judicial documents and may properly remain under seal, I
do not consider the proposed redactions.

Now that Madelaine and Jones Day have agreed to the terms of Jones Day’s withdrawal
(subject to a ruling that Jones Day’s motion papers may remain sealed), there is no longer a
contested matter for the Court to decide. Because there is no pending dispute, the motion papers
are not at this point “judicial documents” to which the public has a right of access. See, e.g.,
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995); Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2020 WL
133570, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 13, 2020). Even when documents do enjoy a presumption of
access, that presumption may be overcome by the privacy interests of the person or entity
resisting disclosure. Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050-51. The declaration of Madelaine’s Chief
Administrative Officer demonstrates that Madelaine would be prejudiced if the Jones Day
motion papers were publicly disclosed.
For the reasons stated above, the motions of Jones Day for leave to withdraw as counsel
and of Madelaine that the motion papers described above remain under seal are granted.
SO ORDERED.

Brooklyn, New York
August 2, 2020

Steven M. Gold
United States Magistrate Judge

U:\Madelaine withdrawal motion.docx

2