Under Seal v. Under Seal
273 F. Supp. 3d 460
| S.D.N.Y. | 2017Background
- Krechmer (plaintiff) alleges he ghostwrote Andrea Tantaros’s (defendant) 2016 book and seeks copyright/contract relief; he filed the complaint under seal citing a confidentiality clause in an earlier Collaboration Agreement.
- Parties dispute whether the written Collaboration Agreement remained binding or was orally replaced by a separate ghostwriting agreement; Krechmer alleges he was paid $30,000 of an agreed $150,000 fee.
- The Collaboration Agreement contains a confidentiality clause prohibiting the collaborator from disclosing involvement absent written consent, but allowing disclosure as required by lawful process after notice and an opportunity to seek protection.
- Tantaros moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Krechmer from violating the confidentiality provision and asked the court to keep the case sealed, claiming irreparable reputational harm if his authorship allegations became public.
- Krechmer opposed continued sealing, arguing the strong common-law and First Amendment presumptions of public access outweigh confidentiality interests and that Tantaros failed to show irreparable harm.
- Judge Forrest denied the preliminary injunction, found the presumption of public access applied, determined Tantaros had not shown higher values or irreparable harm to overcome the presumption, and ordered the case unsealed after three business days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial records should remain sealed | Seal should be lifted; public has presumptive right of access to pleadings and motion papers | Seal and injunction necessary to protect confidentiality clause and defendant’s reputation | Documents are judicial records; presumption of access applies and seal is lifted |
| Whether the confidentiality provision bars public disclosure during litigation | Confidentiality clause cannot override public access; plaintiff invoked sealing only as precaution | Confidentiality was essential to the bargain and remains binding, so disclosure would cause irreparable harm | Confidentiality interest does not overcome presumption of access; not a higher value justifying sealing |
| Whether a preliminary injunction is warranted to enforce confidentiality | No injunction needed because defendant cannot show irreparable harm; monetary damages suffice | Injunction required to prevent irreparable reputational and career harm and to preserve contractual benefit | Preliminary injunction denied for failure to show imminent, irreparable harm; monetary relief is adequate |
| Whether the First Amendment/common-law standards permit closure or prior restraint | Strong First Amendment and common-law presumptions favor openness; closure requires specific, narrowly tailored findings | Closure justified to prevent disclosure that would harm a public figure’s credibility and contractual expectations | Neither First Amendment nor common-law presumption overcome defendant’s generalized reputational/contractual claims; closure not permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir.) (standards and public-consequence considerations for preliminary injunctions)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (framework for determining whether documents are judicial and weight of public-access presumption)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir.) (rationale for public monitoring of courts and limits on sealing for improper purposes)
- Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Orion Pictures, 21 F.3d 24 (2d Cir.) (sealing requires extraordinary circumstances/compelling need)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.) (pleadings generally treated as judicial records subject to access)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions, including irreparable harm requirement)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (First Amendment right to attend trials and related proceedings)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (First Amendment qualified right of access to certain judicial documents)
- Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir.) (First Amendment and common-law access analysis and burden to justify closure)
- Press-Enterprises Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (closure requires specific findings and narrow tailoring)