Underwood v. Lastrada Entertainment Company, Ltd. et al.
Filing
117
ORDER terminating 116 Letter Motion to Seal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall re-submit their request to file the Warner Music Group documents under seal. The request shall be made in a manner that is compliant with the Southern District of New York ECF Rules and Instructions and this Court's Individual Practices. The request shall also include proposed findings that support the request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/4/2021) (jca)
Case 1:16-cv-09058-DLC Document 117 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
:
WILLIAM R. UNDERWOOD,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
LASTRADA ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, LTD., :
:
STEVE ARRINGTON, SAM CARTER, CHARLES
:
CARTER, WAUNG HANKERSON, and ROGER
PARKER,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------- X
16cv9058 (DLC)
ORDER
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
On March 4, 2021, Defendants Lastrada Entertainment
Company, Charles Carter, and Sam Carter (“Defendants”) filed on
ECF a request to file certain documents produced by non-party
Warner Music Group under seal in conjunction with a forthcoming
motion for summary judgment.
In their request, Defendants noted
that the Warner Music Group documents were designated
“Confidential” under the protective order in this action.
Defendants also submitted the request to these Chambers via
email.
The First Amendment accords a strong presumption of public
access to pleadings and other judicial documents that “have
historically been open to the press and general public” and
“play[ ] a significant positive role in the functioning of the
Case 1:16-cv-09058-DLC Document 117 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 3
particular process.”
Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir. 2016).
See also
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir.
2006).
The Second Circuit has held that this presumption of
public access applies to “summary judgment motions and documents
relied upon in adjudicating them.”
Newsday LLC v. County of
Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
The First Amendment “requires a court to make specific, rigorous
findings before sealing the document or otherwise denying public
access.”
Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 141 (citation omitted).
“[T]he
presumptive right of access prevails unless it is overcome by
specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to
preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly
tailored to achieve that aim.”
(citation omitted).
Newsday, 730 F.3d at 165
Accordingly, when making requests to redact
or seal material, a party must include in a publicly filed
letter any proposed findings that support the request.
A
document may not be sealed or redacted simply because it
contains material that is captured by a confidentiality
agreement, although that may be a relevant fact to mention in
the application.
Additionally, any request to seal or redact a filing must
be made in a manner that complies with the Southern District of
2
Case 1:16-cv-09058-DLC Document 117 Filed 03/04/21 Page 3 of 3
New York's ECF Rules and Instructions, section 6, as well as
this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, section 8.
Where a party seeks permission to file a document under seal,
the proposed sealed document must be contemporaneously filed
under seal on ECF and electronically related to the motion to
seal.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants shall re-submit their request to
file the Warner Music Group documents under seal.
The request
shall be made in a manner that is compliant with the Southern
District of New York ECF Rules and Instructions and this Court’s
Individual Practices.
The request shall also include proposed
findings that support the request.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:
New York, New York
March 4, 2021
__________________________________
DENISE COTE
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?