Maragh v. The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation et al

Filing 155

ORDER granting 152 LETTER MOTION to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding t he underlying motion. The parties shall submit a proposed protective order for the Court's consideration (mindful that the Court will strike or modify any provision that purports to authorize any party to file material under seal absent a court order). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 152 and to mail a copy of this endorsed letter-motion to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/7/2021) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:16-cv-07530-JMF Document 155 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2

Holly G. Rogers
[phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

ROBERT P. POWERS
JOHN F. ROONEY, III *(CT, DC, NH, NY, PA)
WILLIAM D. CHAPMAN
MICHAEL J. MAZURCZAK *(NY & WI)
RICHARD E. HEIFETZ *(NH)
ROBERT T. TREAT
WILLIAM L. KEVILLE, JR.
MICHAEL R. B YRNE
MARK S. BODNER *(NH)
MATTHEW C. WELNICKI *(CT)
WILLIAM P. ROSE
JAMES T. SCAMBY *(PA & NJ)
JARED B. GIROUX
HOLLY G. ROGERS (CT & NY)
T. DOS URBANSKI *(RI)
ROBERT S. LUDLUM*(CT & NY)
SHANNON MCQUEENEY D OHERTY*(NY)
JOHN G. WHEATLEY *(ME)
CHRISTOPHER D. GEORGE
BRIAN C. D AVIS
CAROLYN M. MILLER
SYD A. SALOMAN *(RI)
CHRISTIAN H. H INRICHSEN *(ME, NH, RI)
MATTHEW B. D IMARIO *(RI)
CHRISTOPHER VAN TIENHOVEN *(RI & CT)
WHITNEY K. B ARROWS *(NY)
STEVEN M. B ANKS (CT & NY)
ERINN M. GLOSTER
DIANE O. P IRES *(NH)
CHARLES C. G ARDNER (CT & NY)
LAUREN S. F ACKLER *(NJ, NY & VT)
KAITLIN A. B AIR (CT)
NATASHA KING WINTER
VICTORIA M. R ANIERI
PETER R. CHANDLER *(NY)
JACQUELINE A. CROCKWELL *(RI, CT, NH & VT)
ALEXANDER W. AHRENS (CT)
KATHLEEN M. F ARRELL *(NY)
MATHEW W. BECKWITH (CT & NY)
LAURA K. TERRASI
MEAGAN M. BELLAMY *(RI)
ALISON T. FEELEY
BRIAN Z. LEBLANC
ELIZABETH J. FEGREUS
JEREMY P. MC MANUS
SARAH A. F ARLEY
JOHNATHAN L. KONANDREAS (CT)
LAUREN K. C AMIRE

OF COUNSEL
DOUGLAS L. FOX *(FL)
ERIN J.M. ALARCON *(NH)
JENNIFER A. SUNDERLAND

*ALSO ADMITTED

ONE LIBERTY SQUARE
BOSTON , MA 02109
[phone]
FAX [phone]
WORCESTER COUNTY
371 TURNPIKE ROAD, SUITE 120
SOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772
[phone]
FAX [phone]
ONE RICHMOND SQUARE
PROVIDENCE, RI 02906
[phone]
FAX [phone]
750 MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
HARTFORD, CT 06103
[phone]
FAX [phone]
900 MAIN STREET SOUTH
SOUTHBURY, CT 06488
[phone]
FAX [phone]
40 MAIN STREET
BIDDEFORD, ME 04005
[phone]
FAX [phone]
195 ELM STREET
MANCHESTER, NH 03101
[phone]
FAX [phone]
800 THIRD AVENUE, 28TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022
[phone]
FAX [phone]

MELICKLAW.COM

January 7, 2021
VIA ECF
The Honorable Jesse M. Furman
United States District Judge
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Maragh v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, et al.
16-cv-07530

Dear Judge Furman,
This firm represents the Defendants in the above-referenced action. The
Defendants respectfully submit this letter motion pursuant to Your Honor’s
Individual Rules and Practices to request (i) permission to file certain documents in
support of their summary judgment motion (the “Motion”) under seal, and (ii) for
entry of a confidentiality order with regard to the documents filed under seal.
The Defendants anticipate filing two documents in support of the Motion
that they respectfully request to file under seal, and that these documents also be
designated as confidential. Both documents have been filed under seal with this
motion per Your Honor’s Individual Rules. First is the New York State Department
of Labor, Division of Equal Opportunity Development’s (the “DOL”) final report
of its investigation (in conjunction with the Governor’s Office of Employee
Relations (“GOER”)) of the Plaintiff’s September, 2014 internal complaint of
discrimination. The second is Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation’s (“RIOC”)
Public Safety Department’s (“PSD”) report of its investigation into complaints of
threatening and aggressive behavior by the Plaintiff at the workplace.
These documents have not been made public, and contain sensitive and/or
private information and statements of RIOC employees, including many that are not
parties to this action. The Second Circuit has held that “[t]he privacy interests of
innocent third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation” when
deciding whether to seal certain documents. Gardner v. Newsday, Inc. (In re
Newsday, Inc.), 895 F.2d 74, 79–80 (2d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Biaggi (In re
New York Times Co.), 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 977,
108 S.Ct. 1272, 99 L.Ed.2d 483 (1988) (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 496 U.S.
931, 110 S.Ct. 2631, 110 L.Ed.2d 651 (1990).

Case 1:16-cv-07530-JMF Document 155 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2

Melick & Porter, LLP
January 7, 2021
Page 2

Furthermore, the employees who provided the statements to the investigators likely did so
under a reasonable expectation of confidentiality that, at the very least, did not entail the public
filing of their statements and information on a public docket. The filing of these documents on the
public docket rather than under seal would potentially have the effect of discouraging employees
from being candid in investigations out of concern that their statements could be made public,
including in a litigation proceeding. The Defendants feel that in order for the documents’ efficacy
to be fully realized in adjudicating the Motion, they must be submitted in their entirety.
As these documents have not been made public and will be accessible to the Plaintiff for
the purpose of this litigation, the Defendants respectfully request that these documents be
designated as confidential to ensure that they will only be utilized by the parties for purposes of
this litigation, and that any other use, reference, disclosure or dissemination of the information
contained in these documents be prohibited by an order of the Court. The individuals who
provided information and statements to the investigators expressed their concerns of potential
reprisal from the Plaintiff for doing so. As the Plaintiff will have access to these documents for
purposes of this litigation, an order of the Court deeming the reports confidential will help protect
against the potential of misuse, and help to assuage any concerns regarding the security of the
participants in the investigations.
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon motion, a court may
grant a protective order “which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” provided that the party or person
requesting the protective order has demonstrated that good cause exists for its issuance. See In re
Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants respectfully request that they be permitted
to file the aforementioned investigation reports under seal and that they be deemed confidential
for use only for purposes of this litigation and that any other use, reference, disclosure, or
dissemination of the reports or any information or documentation contained therein be prohibited
by an order of the Court.
Thank you for Your Honor's consideration of the Defendants' request.
The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will
assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or
Respectfully submitted,
redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The
parties shall submit a proposed protective order for the
/s/Holly G. Rogers
Court's consideration (mindful that the Court will strike or
modify any provision that purports to authorize any party Holly G. Rogers, Esq.
to file material under seal absent a court order).
cc: Othniel Maragh via ECF and Email
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 152 and to mail a copy of this endorsed lettermotion to the Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
January 7, 2021