Hardy v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
697 F. App'x 723
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- 1983 class action by a demolition-workers union member over demolition of the Bonwit Teller building (for construction of Trump Tower); parties settled in 1998 and district court approved the settlement.
- The district court docketed and sealed four documents related to the settlement: an October 26, 1998 conference transcript, a November 9, 1998 plaintiffs’ brief, and two court orders approving the settlement (Dec. 30, 1998 and Feb. 9, 1999).
- In 2016 Time, Inc. and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press moved to unseal those four documents; the district court denied the motion.
- Two documents (transcript and plaintiffs’ brief) were later destroyed under the court’s record-retention policy; the court of appeals therefore did not rule on unsealing those items.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial as to the two remaining sealed court orders and concluded both the common-law and First Amendment presumptions of access apply.
- The Court vacated and remanded for the district court to weigh the presumptions against any countervailing interests, requiring specific on-the-record findings if sealing is to be maintained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the destroyed transcript and brief can be unsealed | Press argued all four docketed items should be public | Defendants relied on the prior sealing order and retention policy | Court declined to decide for destroyed items (records no longer exist) |
| Whether court orders approving settlement are judicial documents subject to access | Press: orders are judicial records and presumptively public | Defendants: sealing was appropriate given settlement context | Orders are judicial documents; common-law presumption of access attaches (middling strength) |
| Whether First Amendment right of access applies | Press: First Amendment creates presumption of access to judicial orders | Defendants: countervailing interests can justify secrecy | First Amendment presumption applies but may be overcome by competing interests |
| Standard for maintaining sealing on remand | Press: sealing must be narrowly tailored and justified on the record | Defendants: secrecy may be necessary to protect higher values | District court must identify specific countervailing interests, make on-the-record findings, and show sealing is essential and narrowly tailored; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (establishes common-law and First Amendment presumptions of access to judicial documents and analytical framework)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (discusses strength of presumption and examples of documents receiving strongest access presumption)
- Independence Party of Richmond Cty. v. Graham, 413 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2005) (addresses effect of destroyed records on access requests)
- In re Application of the United States for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(D), 707 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that court-created documents are judicial records)
- EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (characterizing court decrees and orders as public institution business)
- Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2000) (observing judges’ opinions and orders belong in the public domain)