Kairam, M.D. v. West Side GI, LLC
Filing
91
OPINION AND ORDER: Before the Court is Defendants Letter-Motion to seal (ECF No. 83) portions of the transcript from the October 30, 2018 Oral Argument on Defendants motion to dismiss. (See ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 16, 2018 (ECF No. 85) and Defendant replied on November 26, 2018. (ECF No. 90.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants motion is DENIED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/29/2018) (jca)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
11/29/2018
Indira Kairam, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
-against-
1:18-cv-01005 (AT) (SDA)
OPINION AND ORDER
West Side GI, LLC,
Defendant.
STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Defendant’s Letter-Motion to seal (ECF No. 83) portions of the
transcript from the October 30, 2018 Oral Argument on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (See ECF
No. 79.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 16, 2018 (ECF No. 85) and Defendant replied
on November 26, 2018. (ECF No. 90.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is
DENIED.
Defendant seeks to redact from the transcript information related to: (1) the terms and
conditions for the sale of membership units; (2) salaries of non-party members of West Side (3)
competitive restrictions, and (4) information regarding West Side’s potential future acquisition
of a non-party entity. (Def.’s Letter-Motion, ECF No. 83, at 1-2.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant
has not met its burden to justify sealing portions of the transcript and that the information at
issue already has been disclosed by Defendant or the Court in its Report and Recommendation
on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (See ECF No. 85.)
The presumptive First Amendment right of public access to judicial proceedings
encompasses “civil trials and . . . their related proceedings and records.” N.Y. Civil Liberties Union
v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2011). The Second Circuit has held that “[t]he
transcript of a proceeding is so closely related to the ability to attend the proceeding itself that
maintaining secrecy is appropriate only if closing the courtroom was appropriate. Newsday LLC
v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 165 (2d Cir. 2013). “Where the presumptive First Amendment
interest in public access applies . . . it may be overcome by ‘specific, on the record findings . . .
demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve
that interest.’” In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., No. 14-MC-02542
(VSB), 2014 WL 12772236, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2014) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “The need to
protect sensitive commercial information from disclosure to competitors seeking an advantage
may constitute such an interest.” Id. (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir.
1995)). However, for documents that are the basis for adjudication, “only the most compelling
reasons can justify the total foreclosure of public and professional scrutiny.” Joy v. North, 692
F.2d 880, 894 (2d Cir. 1982)
The vast majority of the proposed redactions relate to the proposed deal with Physicians
Endoscopy Health Associates, which is the basis for Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim and, thus,
central to the Court’s recommendation regarding that claim. The Court finds that Defendant has
not met it burden to justify sealing this information, which in any case would remain public as it
is discussed in the Court’s Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 82.) Similarly, the salary
information and certain terms of sale of membership units, as well as competitive restrictions,
2
are referenced in the Report to the extent necessary to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, the
proposed redactions relate to information that has already been disclosed. While the Court
previously has allowed redactions of some of Defendant’s confidential business information,
under the current circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown how the limited
information in the proposed redactions will cause it competitive injury. See Gambale v. Deutsche
Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004) (confidential settlement amount disclosed in court’s
opinion and published on Westlaw and Lexis was no longer confidential) (citing SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., 261 F.Supp.2d 1002, 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J.,
sitting by designation) (deciding that a motion to seal portions of an agreement containing
confidential information would not be granted as to redacted aspects of the agreement already
disclosed in the court’s opinion)).
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
New York, New York
November 29, 2018
______________________________
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate 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?