Lowery Bros. Infiniti Inc. v. Infiniti Division Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 10

DECISION and ORDER re 3 & 4 Orders to Show Cause. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to stay the termination proceedings is GRANTED and its motion to seal this case is DENIED. Plaintiff may apply for appropriate relief concernin g particular documents and/or seek an appropriate confidentiality order. Defendant's motion for expedited discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 10/23/2013. (Motions terminated: 8 MOTION to Expedite filed by Infiniti Division Nissan North America, Inc.) (dpk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------LOWERY BROS. INFINITI, INC. D/B/A
INFINITI OF SYRACUSE,
Plaintiff,
v.

5:13-cv-1258

INFINITI DIVISION, NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------THOMAS J. McAVOY
Senior United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff Lower Brothers Infiniti, Inc. d/b/a/ Infiniti of Syracuse commenced the
instant action against Defendant Infiniti Division of Nissan North America, Inc. asserting
claims for breach of contract, violations of the New York Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer
Act, violation of the Automobile Dealer’s Day in Court Act, and tortious interference with
existing business relations. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, brought by Order
to Show Cause, seeking: (1) a stay of the proceedings to terminate Plaintiff’s dealership
pending the resolution of this litigation; and (2) to have this matter sealed; and Defendant’s
motion for expedited discovery. Defendant does not oppose the stay of the termination
proceedings, but does oppose the sealing of this matter. Defendant also moves for
expedited discovery.
Stay of Termination Proceedings

Section 463(e)(1) of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law provides for a stay of
the proposed termination of a motor vehicle dealer’s franchise provided that a lawsuit
challenging the termination is filed within four months of the manufacturer’s notice of
termination. Here, Defendant concedes that the instant matter was commenced within the
requisite time period and does not oppose a stay of termination. Accordingly, insofar as
Plaintiff seeks a stay of termination, that relief is granted.
Case Sealing
Plaintiff seeks to have this matter sealed “to prevent the irreparable harm
associated with public disclosure of this business dispute and information which may be filed
in connection with this dispute.” According to Plaintiff:
disclosure of Infiniti’s efforts to terminate the franchise agreement and close Infiniti
of Syracuse will definitely cause unnecessary concern and uncertainty among the
dealership’s employees and would also unnecessarily cause the public to be
reluctant to do business with Infiniti of Syracuse. Were that to occur, it would have
an irreparable impact on the dealership, and would effectively render the injunction
and the lawsuit meaningless.
Plaintiff also fears a spillover effect on a separate Chrysler-Jeep dealership, which is
apparently owned and operated by the same individuals as the Plaintiff dealership.
Additionally, Plaintiff points to “non-public information concerning [its] . . . substantial financial
investment . . . and [the potential disclosure of] confidential aspects of the operation of Infiniti
of Syracuse. . . [t]hat would create a competitive disadvantage with [its] competition.” Lastly,
Plaintiff fears that the absence of a sealing order would impact any possible future sale of its
franchise rights to another dealer.
Defendant opposes the sealing of this matter arguing that it is contrary to the
presumption of open access to court records, Plaintiffs documents and information are not

- 2 -

the type that typically warrant sealing, and sealing the entire case (rather than preserving the
confidentiality of specified documents) is overbroad.
Cases recognize a common-law right of access to judicial records. Lugosch v. Pyramid
Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121
F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). “Before
any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents
at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. The mere fact that a
document is filed with the court does not make it a judicial document subject to the right of public
access. Id. Rather, the document must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function
and useful in the judicial process. Id. Once documents are found to be judicial documents, the
presumption of common law access attaches. The Court must then determine the weight of that
presumption. The more a document directly affects the Court’s adjudicative function, the greater
the weight. Id. Lastly, the Court must then balance competing considerations against public
access. Id. at 120.
There also exists a First Amendment right of access which may be overcome only by
specific findings that closure is essential to preserve higher value. Id. Any restriction on the right
of access must be narrowly tailored. Id. Under either rule, the burden of demonstrating that a
case, or document, should be sealed is upon the party seeking such action, in this case Plaintiff.
DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826.
In light of these considerations, the Court finds that sealing of the entire case is
overbroad and is not warranted based on the facts and circumstances of this case. This case
does not involve the type of concerns that warrant sealing of the entire matter. Accordingly, the
Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal this matter.
- 3 -

Turning to the specific filings in this case, the initial complaint certainly qualifies as a
judicial document. See Hansen v. Rhode Island's Only 24 Hour Truck & Auto Plaza, Inc., 863
F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Mass. 2012); United Air Lines, Inc. v. Allen, 645 F. Supp. 2d 34, 36 (D.
Mass. 2009); Ello v. Singh, 531 F. Supp.2d 552, 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Because the complaint
sets the legal and factual parameters of the case, it is essential to the adjudicative process and,
therefore, carries a strong presumption of public access. The same reasoning applies to
Plaintiff’s papers in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction. To the extent that there is
confidential financial (or other) information annexed to the complaint or attached to Plaintiff’s
motion papers that could compromise Plaintiff’s competitive edge over its competition or
otherwise justify sealing, that may present different circumstances. Plaintiff does not, however,
specify what particular documents contain such information. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not
sustained its burden at this point in time and its motion is, therefore, DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff may apply for appropriate relief to have particular documents sealed or, alternatively,
the parties may work collaboratively with the Magistrate Judge to have an appropriate
confidentiality order entered.
Expedited Discovery
Lastly, Defendant moves for expedited discovery. This motion is not properly before
the Court at this time. Defendant may apply for such relief before the assigned Magistrate
Judge, at which time the parties also can discuss a potential confidentiality order to protect any
sensitive information. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for expedited relief is denied without
prejudice.

- 4 -

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to stay the termination proceedings is
GRANTED and its motion to seal this case is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall unseal this
matter. Plaintiff may apply for appropriate relief concerning particular documents and/or seek
an appropriate confidentiality order. Defendant’s motion for expedited discovery is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2013

- 5 -