Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skout Monitoring, LLC
Opinion
Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v Skout Monitoring, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 34250(U)
November 29, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650539/2022 Judge: Joel M. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 343 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE INDEX NO. 650539/2022 COMPANY,
07/17/2024,
Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 09/27/2024
- V -
MOTION SEQ. NO. 006 008 SKOUT MONITORING, LLC,CONSOLIDATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DECISION+ ORDER ON Defendants. MOTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,186,213,214 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 250,251,252, 253, 254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273, 274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293, 294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313, 314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333, 334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
Plaintiff Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company ("GNY") seeks orders sealing and/or redacting exhibits that were filed in connection with this proceeding as NYSCEF Document Numbers 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 171, 173, 175, 177, and 181 (MS 06); and 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199,200,201,202,203,204, 205,206,216,218,219,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,233,234,235, 237,239,240,241,242,254,256,258,260,262,264,266,268,270,272,274,276,281,286,
650539/2022 GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SKOUT Page 1 of 6 MONITORING, LLC ET AL Motion No. 006 008
1 of 6
[* 1]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 343 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024
277,282,279,284,288,289,291,292,294,296,298,300,302,304,306,308,310,312,314, 316, 318, 320, 322, 324, 327, 329, 331, 333, and 335 (MS 08). For the following reasons, the motions are granted in part.
Pursuant to§ 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing "upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties" (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]).
The Appellate Division has emphasized that "there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records" (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). "Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public's right to access" (Danco Labs., Ltd v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000] [emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VL LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B. V, 28 AD3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). "Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the rule, 'the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access"' (Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516,517 [1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]).
The Court has reviewed the proposed sealing of the documents filed as NYSCEF document numbers 75, 76, 78, and 155 (MS 06); and 202,206,219,276,281,288, and 291 (MS 08), as well as the targeted redactions of the documents filed as NYSCEF numbers 77, 81, 82, 84,88,92,94,96,97,98, 100,101,103,105,106,109,112,118,120,121,156,158,160,162, 164, 166, 169, 171, 175, and 177 (MS 06); and 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199,
650539/2022 GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SKOUT Page 2 of 6 MONITORING, LLC ET AL Motion No. 006 008
2 of 6
[* 2]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 343 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024
200,201,203,204,216,218,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,233,234, 235,237,239,240,241,242,254,256,258,260,262,264,266,268,270,272,274,277,279, 282,284,289,292,294,296,298,300,302,304,306,308,310,312,314,316,318,320,322, 324, 327, 329, 331, 333, and 335 (MS 08), and finds that they comport with the applicable sealing standard as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-50, and its progeny, in that the redacted information contains sensitive and confidential business and financial information. Further, these Exhibits are properly sealed and/or redacted to the extent they contain nonpublic information about confidential contracts or agreements with non-parties (Mancheski v Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 [2d Dept 2007] ["[D]isclosure could impinge on the privacy rights of third parties who clearly are not litigants herein[.]"]).
However, the parties' generalized assertions of good cause as to the documents filed as NYSCEF document numbers 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 99, 102, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 168, 173, 1 and 181 2 (MS 06); and 205 and 286 (MS 08), do not establish a compelling justification for the complete (or functionally complete) sealing that is proposed. While specific portions of these documents may include confidential business and
1
With respect to NYSCEF 108 (also uploaded at NYSCEF 173), the document is heavily redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege, and it appears no proposed targeted redactions are in highlights in the documents. The Court therefore cannot evaluate whether these documents need to be sealed. However, to the extent they constitute only redacted copies of otherwise privileged documents, the Court will not consider sealing them. Only unredacted copies filed to the docket need to be sealed.
2
NYSCEF 181 appears to be an omnibus document proposing targeted redactions to a variety of the documents sought to be sealed by Defendant Skout Monitoring, LLC ("Skout"). But it is not clear to which document(s) it is intended to correspond, and it is further not clear whether the proposed targeted redactions in NYSCEF 181 differ from the proposed targeted redactions in the other uploaded documents. Furthermore, NYSCEF 181 does not appear on either sealing chart (NYSCEF 151, 180). Accordingly, the Court denies sealing NYSCEF 181 without prejudice to a future motion to seal the unredacted copy and file redacted versions to the docket.
650539/2022 GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SKOUT Page 3 of 6 MONITORING, LLC ET AL
Motion No. 006 008
3 of 6
[* 3]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 343 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024
financial information, the proposed sealing is not adequately explained or justified. Thus, the parties should propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicable case law.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 NY Slip Op 34250(U) (Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skout Monitoring, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.