Elghourab v. Vista JFK, LLC

Filing 119

ORDER denying 118 Consent MOTION to Seal Document 114 Reply in Opposition and file a redacted version. For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion and order, the motion to seal is denied. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 3/2/2023. (NH)

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 5387

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MOHAMED ELGHOURAB,
Plaintiff,

17-CV-911 (ARR) (ST)

-against-

OPINION & ORDER

VISTA JFK, LLC,
Defendant.

ROSS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Mohamed Elghourab moves, with consent of defendant Vista JFK, LLC (“Vista
JFK”), to seal and file a redacted version of his response to defendant’s objections to a report
recommending that I grant plaintiff’s motion to enforce the judgment. For the following reasons,
the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
In February 2017, Mr. Elghourab sued Vista JFK for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York labor law. Mr. Elghourab had been employed by Vista JFK to work in the
kitchen of the restaurant at the Radisson Hotel JFK Airport (“Radisson JFK”); he sought damages
for defendant’s failure to pay him overtime wages. After a two-day bench trial, I found Vista JFK
liable. Elghourab v. Vista JFK, LLC, No. 17-CV-911 (ARR) (ST), 2019 WL 2431905 (E.D.N.Y.
June 11, 2019). After I granted in part defendant’s motion for an amended judgment, Elghourab
v. Vista JFK, LLC, No. 17-CV-911 (ARR) (ST), 2019 WL 13218564 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2019), I
entered an amended judgment awarding Mr. Elghourab unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, statutory damages, and pre-judgment interest totaling $1,024,267.46, plus post-judgment

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 5388

interest at the statutory rate, Amended Judgment, ECF No. 82. Vista JFK appealed, and the Second
Circuit affirmed. Elghourab v. Vista JFK, LLC, 818 F. App’x 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2020).
On January 11, 2022, Mr. Elghourab filed a motion to enforce the judgment that principally
sought a turnover order directing certain non-parties––four corporate entities and an individual
named Ally Visram––to satisfy the amended judgment. Mem. in Support of Mot. to Enforce (“Mot.
to Enforce”) 2, ECF No. 99-1. I respectfully referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Steven
Tiscione, who issued a report recommending that Mr. Elghourab’s motion be granted. Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) 1, ECF No. 103. In short, Judge Tiscione concluded that the nonparties, including Visram, the owner of Vista JFK, exercised complete control over Vista JFK and
that equity demanded judicial intervention given defendant’s misrepresentations, inadequate
capitalization, and diversion of funds to the non-parties. Id. at 3, 13–14. Vista JFK filed an
objection to the R&R, Def.’s Obj., ECF No. 113, and Mr. Elghourab filed a response to the
objections, Resp. to Obj., ECF No. 114. Before I could rule on the pending motion, Mr. Elghourab
filed a satisfaction of judgment, which affirmed that the judgment and costs had been paid in full,
Satisfaction of Judgement, ECF No. 115, and moved to withdraw the motion to enforce.
Finally, on October 25, 2022, Mr. Elghourab filed a motion to seal and file a redacted
version of his response to defendant’s objection to the R&R. The motion, which was filed on
consent, includes a declaration by Ally Visram and an exhibit with proposed redactions marked.
Visram Decl., ECF No. 118-2; Visram Decl., Ex. 1 (“Proposed Redactions”). The redactions
would conceal certain purportedly damaging statements about Mr. Visram. 1

1

Plaintiff “agreed to file” the motion, Mem. in Support of Mot. to Seal (“Mot. to Seal”) 3, ECF
No. 118-1, presumably as part of a bargain to resolve the motion to enforce.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 5389

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a longstanding common law right of public access to judicial documents. Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The presumption of access is
governed by a three-step analysis. First, I must determine whether the document at issue is
“relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process” and thus a
“judicial document” covered by the presumption of public access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119
(quotation omitted). Second, I must determine the weight of the presumption of access. Id. The
weight is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power
and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” United States
v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”). Third and finally, I must balance
countervailing considerations, such as “the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial
efficiency” and “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure,” against the weight of the
presumption of access. Id. at 1050. 2
Though both parties consent to the motion to seal, I have an obligation to carefully
scrutinize the request. The presumption of access to judicial documents is not subject to the whims
of litigants, but rather is “based on the need for federal courts . . . to have a measure of
accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Id. at 1048.

2

Separately, there is a qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial documents that “has
been understood to be stronger than its common law ancestor.” United States v. Erie County, 763
F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). Because I deny the motion under the common law presumption of
public access, I do not address the First Amendment counterpart.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 5390

DISCUSSION
In the motion to seal, plaintiff explains that he made “potentially damaging allegations
against” non-parties, specifically Ally Visram, in his response to defendant’s objections to the
R&R. Mot. to Seal 1. Judging by Mr. Visram’s declaration and proposed redactions, the damaging
allegations principally concern assertions about Mr. Visram’s control of Vista JFK and allegations
that Visram and others obscured Vista JFK’s assets and ownership “through fraud, wrongdoing,
and false representation.” See generally Proposed Redactions. Visram also seeks to redact
allegations that certain admissions, declarations, and representations he and others made were
“false” or “bogus.” Proposed Redactions 5–6.
Mr. Elghourab argues that because the judgment has been satisfied, “Visram has been
deprived of his opportunity to seek vindication” by responding to the motion to enforce and “there
is . . . no overriding public interest that prevents the allegations from being sealed.” Mot. to Seal
1. Finally, the motion argues that the “sealing request is also narrowly tailored, applying to only a
select number of sentences and portions of sentences in a ten-page filing.” Id.
In his declaration, Mr. Visram states that plaintiff’s response “went beyond the scope of
the R&R and the Objections to the R&R to needlessly and baselessly accuse me personally of
wrongdoing that goes well beyond this action.” Visram Decl. ¶ 10 (quotation marks and alteration
omitted). He adds that the allegations are “baseless and wholly untrue” and “gratuitous in that they
were not necessary to the Motion to Pierce.” Id. ¶ 12. Finally, Visram—who is Chief Operating
Officer of non-party Vista Property Management, LLC—explains that plaintiff’s allegations could
“seriously and significantly imperil [his] hotel business now and in the future” by impairing his
“ability to access new franchise opportunities or extension, loans or financing approvals for

4

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5391

existing hotels and potential new acquisitions, particularly now when hotels are slowly recovering
from the Covid-19 pandemic that battered the hospitality industry.” Id. ¶¶ 13, 19.
To determine whether the parties may make the requested redactions, I will apply the threestep test discussed above. First, I must determine whether plaintiff’s response to defendant’s
objections to the R&R is a judicial document. Clearly the R&R itself is a judicial document. See
Leslie v. Met Pro Techs., LLC, No. 16-CV-1428 (TJM) (DJS), 2019 WL 5783518, at *3 (N.D.N.Y.
Mar. 26, 2019); Castellano v. Young & Rubicam, Inc., No. 97-CV-5464 (SHS) (HBP), 1999 WL
714063, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1999). Likewise, the underlying motion to enforce the judgment,
which seeks specific relief from the court and calls for the “performance of Article III functions,”
is a judicial document. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. It follows that briefing in response to the R&R,
such as the objections and response to objections filed in this case, which are “relevant to the
performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119,
are also judicial documents presumptively subject to public disclosure.
Second, I consider the weight of the presumption of public access. Documents are not given
“different weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied upon in resolving
the motion.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123. Thus, the fact that I never had to consider Mr. Elghourab’s
submission does not weaken the presumption of public access. Shetty v. SG Blocks, Inc., No. 20CV-00550 (ARR) (SMG), 2020 WL 3183779, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. June 15, 2020). Nor does the
withdrawal of the underlying motion to enforce weigh against the presumption of public access.
Giurca v. Montefiore Health Sys., Inc., No. 18-CV-11505 (ER) (BCM), 2021 WL 2739061, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2021) (“Defendants point to no authority (and the Court is aware of none) for
the proposition that judicial documents lose that status if the motion to which they pertain is
withdrawn before any ruling is issued.”). Ultimately, the inquiry hinges on whether the document

5

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 5392

was “presented to the court to invoke its powers or affect its decisions.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at
1050. Though I did not rely on the briefing in response to the R&R due to the withdrawal of the
motion to enforce, I certainly would have considered the objections and response in deciding
whether to accept or reject Judge Tiscione’s recommendation, and the response was presented to
me for that purpose. Cf. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123 (“[D]ocuments that the judge should have
considered or relied upon, but did not, are just as deserving of disclosure as those that actually
entered into the judge’s decision.”). As a result, I find that the presumption of public access is
strong.
Third, I conclude that countervailing considerations do not outweigh the presumption of
public access. Certainly, third party privacy interests are “a venerable common law exception to
the presumption of access.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051. However, in this context, Mr. Visram’s
privacy interest is not as weighty as a typical third party. Judge Tiscione concluded the following:
Mr. Visram owns defendant Vista JFK and has a 49% stake in Amaya JFK Hotel LLC, which
owns JFK Hotel Holdings, LLC, which owns JFK Hotel Mezz Borrower, LLC, which owns JFK
Hotel Owner, LLC (“JFK Hotel Owner”), which—as its name suggests—owns the Radisson JFK.
R&R 3. Vista JFK is operated by JFK Hotel Owner, but it is neither owned by nor a subsidiary of
JFK Hotel Owner. Id. This convoluted corporate structure lies at the heart of the motion to enforce,
and Mr. Visram—who was deposed during the enforcement proceedings—is a central character in
the story. Thus, his privacy interests are minimal. Moreover, courts in this circuit have consistently
held that general concerns about harm to reputation or future employment are not sufficient to
overcome a strong presumption of public access. Cavender v. U.S. Merch. Marine Acad., No. 20CV-2063 (PKC) (ST), 2020 WL 3304538, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2020) (collecting cases).

6

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 5393

In addition, I am not persuaded that Mr. Visram’s lack of opportunity to respond to the
purportedly “baseless and untrue” allegations is a countervailing factor. Whether the allegations
are true or untrue is neither here nor there. “The fact that a member of the public could draw an
incorrect conclusion is not a basis for sealing a document.” Shetty, 2020 WL 3183779, at *11. And
though Mr. Visram complains that he lacked an opportunity to reply to plaintiff’s response, Visram
presumably did have the opportunity—as the owner of Vista JFK—to file a reply prior to the
satisfaction of judgment, should he have wished to do so. That defendant satisfied the judgment
without first replying to allegations made against its owner does not create a countervailing factor
against public access to the entirety of a judicial document.
Finally, the “damaging allegations” plaintiff seeks to redact are essentially already public.
Statements to the effect that Visram controls Vista JFK, that Vista JFK is a shell company, and
that Visram and others have made fraudulent and false representations about Vista JFK’s assets
and ownership are all repeated in plaintiff’s motion to enforce, which has been publicly available
on the docket since January 11, 2022. See Mot. to Enforce 4, 17–19 (claiming, for example, that
“[t]he fraud and wrongdoing in this case began when Ally Visram committed insurance fraud,” id.
at 17). Though some of the proposed redactions would eliminate the sharp language plaintiff added
to his response to the objections, the substance of the information Visram wishes to seal in the
response is essentially identical to the information contained in the motion to enforce. As I have
previously stated, “[t]he Second Circuit and courts within it have repeatedly found sealing
improper where the relevant material was already made public.” Shetty v. SG Blocks, Inc., 20-CV550 (ARR) (MMH), 2021 WL 4959000 at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2021).

7

Case 1:17-cv-00911-ARR-ST Document 119 Filed 03/02/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 5394

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to seal plaintiff’s response to the objections to the
R&R is denied.

SO ORDERED.

/s/
Allyne R. Ross
United States District Judge
Dated:

March 2, 2023
Brooklyn, New York

8