Magdalena Kulisz, et al. v. PayPal, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAGDALENA KULISZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-v- CIVIL ACTION NO. 25 Civ. 10846 (AT) (SLC)

ORDER PAYPAL, INC.,

Defendant. SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge. On June 15, 2026, Defendant PayPal, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 20 (the “MTD”)). In support of the MTD, Defendant submits, inter alia, two declarations: (i) the Declaration of Alison Donahue Kehner (Dkt. No. 22 (the “Kehner Decl.”) and (ii) the Declaration of Jill Potter. (Dkt. No. 23 (the “Potter Decl.”)). Defendant also moves to: (i) seal Exhibit A to the Kehner Decl. and Exhibit A to the Potter Decl. (Dkt. No. 19 (the “Exhibits”)) to protect certain personal identifiable information (“PII”) of Plaintiffs Magdalena Kulisz (“Kulisz”) and Shahar Kenan (“Kenan”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) including Plaintiffs’ email addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, and the first 15 digits of Kulisz’s PayPal account number; and (ii) file redacted copies of the Exhibits. (Dkt. No. 17 (the “Sealing Motion”)). The Honorable Analisa Torres has referred the Sealing Motion to the undersigned, along with the MTD for a report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 26). With respect to the Sealing Motion, “[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.” Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); see Farris v. Avon Prods., Inc., 23 Civ. 2023 (LAK) (SN), 2024 WL 4441811, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2024) (“Typically, sealing of personal information ‘such as the applicants’ home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses, that is not public’ is warranted unless that information has bearing on issues before the court.”); Palomo v. DeMaio, 15 Civ. 1536 (LEK) (TWD), 2018 WL5113133, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (“personal identifying information, email addresses, mailing addresses, and phone numbers not already public, must be redacted from the any exhibits before they are filed publicly.”). Given that the Sealing Motion seeks to protect Plaintiffs’ Pll, and the Pll has no bearing on issues before the Court, the Sealing Motion is GRANTED. The unredacted Exhibits filed at Dkt. No. 19 shall remain under seal. Given that Defendant already filed redacted versions of the Exhibits, (Dkt. Nos. 22-1; 23-1), Defendants are not required to submit any further documents in connection with the Sealing Motion. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 17. Dated: New York, New York June 25, 2026 SO ORDERED.

(SARAH L. CAVE United States Magistrate Judge