Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE, et al., : Plaintiffs, : 18 Civ. 9936 (LGS) -against- : THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., : ORDER Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a letter motion to provisionally seal the

document filed at Dkt. No 212. The letter motion asserted that it was filed in accordance with the Protective Order (the “Order”) because the at-issue document refers to documents produced by Defendants that have been designated “Confidential” under the Order, and stated that Defendants were the parties with an interest in confidential treatment (Dkt. No 210); WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court’s Individual Rule I.D.3, The party with an interest in confidential treatment bears the burden of persuasion [in a motion to seal]. If this party is not the filing party, the party with an interest in confidential treatment shall promptly file a letter on ECF within two business days in support of the motion [to seal], explaining why it seeks to have certain documents filed in redacted form or under seal.

WHEREAS, no such letter was filed; WHEREAS, on April 2, 2020, an order was issued directing Defendants to file any letter in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal by April 3, 2020 (Dkt. No 222); WHEREAS, on April 3, 2020, Defendants filed a letter in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal that did not explain why Defendants seek to have the document at issue sealed beyond asserting that the information was designated confidential and Plaintiffs had not challenged that designation (Dkt. No. 223); WHEREAS, on April 6, 2020, the Court issued an order preliminarily denying the motion to seal, but staying the unsealing of the document. The order further directed Defendants to file any additional letter in support of the motion by April 7, 2020 (Dkt. No. 224); WHEREAS, no letter was filed. It is hereby ORDERED that letter motion at Dkt. No. 210 is DENIED. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[D]ocuments may be sealed if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to unseal the document at Dkt. No. 212. Dated: April 8, 2020 New York, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE