Bernsten v. O'Reilly
307 F. Supp. 3d 161
| S.D. Ill. | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Bernstein, Mackris, and Diamond sued O'Reilly and Fox News alleging defamation and related claims; O'Reilly moved to dismiss and/or compel arbitration.
- O'Reilly relied on previously executed Settlement, Mutual Release, and Arbitration Agreements (the Agreements) in his motion and filed only selected portions publicly.
- O'Reilly asked the Court to accept the Agreements under seal or in redacted form; Plaintiffs sought to quote or file the full, unredacted Agreements in opposition.
- The Court ordered O'Reilly to produce the unredacted Agreements for in camera review.
- The Court applied the Second Circuit framework for access to judicial documents and determined the Agreements were judicial documents central to adjudication.
- The Court denied O'Reilly's motion to seal, finding he failed to overcome the strong presumptions of public access under common law (and potentially the First Amendment) and rejecting partial redactions as infeasible given the integrated nature of the Agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement/Arbitration Agreements filed in support of a motion to compel arbitration/dismiss are judicial documents subject to public access | The Agreements are part of the record and Plaintiffs will quote them in opposition; public access is required to evaluate the court's ruling | The Agreements are private/confidential and bargained-for secrecy should permit sealing | Court: Agreements are judicial documents because they are central to adjudication; public access presumption applies |
| Whether confidentiality clauses alone justify sealing | Confidentiality clauses do not override the public's right to access judicial records | Confidentiality clauses should preserve privacy and encourage private settlements | Court: Confidentiality clauses insufficient to overcome presumption of access |
| Whether privacy/embarrassment or career-harm concerns justify sealing | Plaintiffs did not argue for sealing; public interest in transparency prevails | O'Reilly asserted generalized privacy/embarrassment and adverse publicity concerns | Court: Generalized privacy or reputational concerns are not compelling; insufficient to seal |
| Whether partial redaction is an appropriate remedy | Plaintiffs opposed limited redactions because the Court and public need the full integrated agreements to assess arguments | O'Reilly sought partial redactions to protect sensitive terms while relying on agreements | Court: Partial redaction is not viable because the agreements are integrated and the motion relies on the agreements as a whole; full disclosure required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (three-step test for public access to judicial documents and heavier presumption when documents are central to adjudication)
- United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1994) (definition of "judicial documents" and relevance inquiry)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (presumption of public access and the role of documents in adjudication)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (First Amendment standards for closure of proceedings and records)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (trial court discretion on access in light of relevant facts and circumstances)
- Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) (distinguishing sealed settlement documents not filed with the court from those relied on in adjudication)
- Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) (public scrutiny of adjudications and high presumption for documents directly affecting adjudication)
- DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (burden on party seeking sealing)