Phillips v. Fashion Institute of Technology et al

Filing 159

ORDER: The Plaintiff's motion to seal is GRANTED in part. The Plaintiff's supporting exhibits may remain under seal. By September 3, 2024, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to publicly file her affidavit with the names of her banking institutions redacted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 8/30/2024) (dsh)

United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). Documents are considered
“judicial documents” if they are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful
in the judicial process.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). In
my report and recommendation, I rely on the Plaintiff’s affidavit and financial documents to find
that the Plaintiff is not indigent and to recommend that the Court award FIT the costs it seeks.
Accordingly, such documents are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function” and
qualify as judicial documents. The Plaintiff does not seem to dispute this.
After finding that documents are judicial documents to which the common law
presumption of access attaches, courts must “balance competing considerations against” that
presumption. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (citation omitted). The sealing of judicial documents
“may be justified only with 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.” Id. at 124.
The interests in favor of non-disclosure can include “the privacy interests of those resisting
disclosure.” Walker v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-500, 2017 WL 2799159, at *6 (E.D.N.Y.
June 27, 2017). The moving party must make a “particular and specific demonstration of fact
showing that disclosure would result in an injury sufficiently serious to warrant protection.”
Ashmore v. CGI Grp. Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 329, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff’d, 923 F.3d 260 (2d
Cir. 2019).
The Plaintiff argues that her privacy interest in her financial documents overcomes the
presumption of public access. In the Plaintiff’s view, her affidavit “consists of information
concerning her private financial information and is accompanied by documents such as bank
statements, loan statements, etc., information which ‘could be used to work a financial fraud on
[the Plaintiff] or others.’” Pl. Ltr., at 2 (citing Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Pub. Tr.,

2

487 F. Supp. 2d 374, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). The personal banking details outlined in the
Plaintiff’s exhibits could subject her to financial fraud if unsealed. They also tend to reveal
individual transactions that are not relevant to the Court’s decision. Accordingly, as to the
exhibits, the Plaintiff’s privacy rights outweigh the need for public access, and those documents
may remain under seal. The only information in the Plaintiff’s affidavit that could subject her to
a financial fraud are references to the names of her banking institutions, which the Plaintiff can
redact. Accordingly, by September 3, 2024, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to publicly file her
affidavit with the names of her banking institutions redacted.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part. The Plaintiff’s supporting exhibits
may remain under seal. By September 3, 2024, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to publicly file her
affidavit with the names of her banking institutions redacted.
SO ORDERED.

SARAH NETBURN
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED:

August 30, 2024
New York, New York

3