Girl Scouts of the United States of America v. Boy Scouts of America

Filing 204

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 141 Letter Motion to Seal. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to refile ECF Nos. 14249, in accordance with this order, and resubmit corrected versions of ECF No. 143, Ex. 13 and ECF No. 149, Ex. 132, for the Court's further consideration. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the open motion (ECF No. 141). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 2/17/2021) (cf)

Case 1:18-cv-10287-AKH Document 204 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- x
:
:
GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
:
AMERICA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------- x

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO SEAL OR
REDACT
18 Civ. 10287 (AKH)

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff moved on December 23, 2020, to file certain pages and exhibits in
connection with its opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment under seal or with
redactions on the public record. See ECF No. 141. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion
is granted in part and denied in part.
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that there is a constitutional and
common law presumption of public access to judicial documents, especially in a case where, as
here, the public has a vested interest. The federal courts recognize a general common law right
of public access to court records and proceedings. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of public access ensures that courts have a measure of
accountability, allows public monitoring, and furthers the public interest in understanding the
judicial process. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Supreme Court has also recognized a constitutional right of access under the First
Amendment. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct. for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982);
Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (extending the constitutional

1

Case 1:18-cv-10287-AKH Document 204 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3

right of access in criminal trials to civil proceedings and particular judicial documents). In this
Circuit, the constitutional right of access applies to documents filed in connection with a
summary judgment motion in civil cases. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124.
Against this backdrop of constitutional and common law presumption in favor of
public access, the Court is obligated to closely examine Plaintiff’s request on a
document-by-document basis. First, Plaintiff requests redactions of personally identifiable
information of individuals, including minors, who are not parties to this lawsuit. See ECF
No. 141, at 2. The relevance of these non-parties’ names, addresses, and e-mail addresses is
minimal to the merits of this lawsuit, and the Court finds that redactions are proper pursuant to
both the letter and spirit of Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, the Court finds that materials in the following documents are properly
placed under seal or redacted to protect Plaintiff’s proprietary business, strategic, and marketing
information, with which the parties take no issue.


ECF No. 143.



ECF No. 144, Ex. 37.



ECF No. 149, Ex. 97, 123, 144, 227, and 290.

Third, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requests to redact materials in the following
documents cannot be granted at this time for seemingly clerical errors. Plaintiff is hereby
ordered to resubmit corrected versions for the Court’s further consideration.


ECF No. 143, Ex. 13. The document submitted for consideration is redacted.
The Court cannot examine the underlying information that Plaintiff seeks to
redact.



ECF No. 149, Ex. 132. The document submitted does not contain any
highlighted portions, as suggested in Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF No. 141,
at 4. The Court cannot examine the underlying information that Plaintiff
seeks to redact.

2

Case 1:18-cv-10287-AKH Document 204 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3

Fourth, upon close inspection and notwithstanding the Court’s prior orders, the
parties’ requests to seal or redact materials in the following documents are denied, to the extent
that the materials do not contain any personally identifiable information.


ECF No. 142 and ECF No. 142, Ex. 287. The highlighted portions on
pages 10, 11, and 13 are material to the parties’ claims and defenses.
The highlighted portions in Exhibit 287 are relevant to the issue of damage.



ECF No. 144, Ex. 49. The exhibit implicates matters of public knowledge and
does not contain any proprietary or sensitive information, consistent with the
Court’s prior ruling. See ECF No. 120.



ECF No. 145 and ECF No. 145, Ex. 285. The highlighted portions implicate
matters of public knowledge, do not contain any proprietary or sensitive
information, and are relevant to the issue of damage.



ECF No. 147. The highlighted portions are material to the parties’ claims and
defenses.



ECF No. 148. The highlighted portions are material to the parties’ claims and
defenses.



ECF No. 149, Ex. 96. The highlighted portions are relevant to the issue of
damage.



ECF No. 149, Ex. 107. The highlighted portions on pages 13, 14, and 17 are
relevant to the issue of damage.



ECF No. 149, Ex. 137. The highlighted portions on page 10 implicate matters
of public knowledge and do not contain any proprietary or sensitive
information. The highlighted portions on page 15 are relevant to the issue of
damage.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to refile ECF Nos. 142–49, in accordance
with this order, and resubmit corrected versions of ECF No. 143, Ex. 13 and ECF No. 149,
Ex. 132, for the Court’s further consideration. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the
open motion (ECF No. 141).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 17, 2021
New York, New York

__________/s/______________
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN
United States District Judge
3