United States of America ex rel. Hassan Foreman v. AECOM, et al

Filing 183

ORDER denying 170 Motion to Seal; denying 181 Motion to Seal. For the same reasons, Realtor's motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 170 and 181) are denied. The parties may renew their motions to seal to provide specific and substantial reasons for sealing the requested materials within thirty days of this order. If no motion is made by that time, the documents will be unsealed. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 4/18/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL.
HASSAN FOREMAN,
Plaintiff,
16 Civ. 1960

(LLS)

- against ORDER
AECOM, AECOM GOVERNMENT SERVICES
INC., AC FIRST LLC, AND AECOM/GSS
LTD.,
Defendants.

Defendants' motion to seal Exhibit A to its letter response
to plaintiff Realtor's letter requesting a discovery dispute
conference (Dkt. No. 175) is granted because it contains the
personal identifying and financial information of a non-party in
this action.

In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee

Antitrust Litig., 2023 WL 196134, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17,

2023) .
Defendants' motion to seal the remaining exhibits is
denied. Those exhibits are submitted to the Court to aid in the
determination of a motion to compel discovery and are therefore
"judicial documents" to which a presumption of access attaches.
Lugosch v.

Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119, 121 (2d

Cir. 2006). The presumption of access to documents relating to a
discovery dispute or a motion to compel is "modest." In re New
York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, 635 F.
1

Supp. 3d 247, 256

(S.D.N.Y. 2022). To overcome that modest

presumption of access, the Court "must still articulate specific
and substantial reasons for sealing such material," though "the
reasons usually need not be as compelling as those required to
seal summary judgment filings." Brown v. Maxwell,
50

929 F.3d 41,

(2d Cir. 2019).
In support of its motion to seal, AECOM states only the

exhibits are designated as "confidential" and "highly
confidential" because they contain sensitive business
information. While the need to protect commercial information
may merit sealing, AECOM has not put forth any exhibit-specific
justifications to seal the exhibits at issue. The Court is
therefore unable to make required findings to justify sealing
those documents.

1

For the same reasons, Realtor's motions to seal

(0kt. Nos.

170 and 181) are denied.
The parties may renew their motions to seal to provide
specific and substantial reasons for sealing the requested

1

The Court is aware the parties have entered a protective order
requiring that certain documents should be filed under seal.
"However, that a document was produced in discovery pursuant to
a protective order has no bearing on the presumption of access
that attaches when it becomes a judicial document." E.g., Doe v.
U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 2021 WL 3862708, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 30, 2021); see Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126.

2

materials within thirty days of this order. If no motion is made
by that time, the documents will be unsealed.
So ordered.
Dated:

New York, New York
April 18, 2024

LOUIS L. STANTON
U.S.D.J.

3