Owen v Array US, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 30000(U) January 1, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651471/2022 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. INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JASON OWEN, INDEX NO. 651471/2022
Plaintiff, 09/19/2024, 10/15/2024, - V - 10/30/2024, 10/30/2024, ARRAY US, INC.,MARTIN TOHA MOTION DATE 10/30/2024 Defendant. 012013014 MOTION SEQ. NO. 014 014
DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 249,250,251,252, 253,254,255,256,257,258,262,263,451,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,460,461 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 266,267,268, 269, 270,271,272,462,463,464 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,408,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,408,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,408,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
Defendant Array US, Inc. ("Array"), seeks orders sealing and/or redacting exhibits that
were filed in connection with this proceeding as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222,
227, 236, and 246 (MS 012); 157 (MS 013); and 284, 286, 293, 305, 316, 318, 324, 331, 334, 651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
336, 338, 342, 345, 363, 367, 371, 376, 378, 383, 388, 396, 398, and 399 (MS 014). 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. VI, 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]). Additionally, sealing and/or redacting is appropriate to the
extent the documents sought to be sealed contain nonpublic information about confidential
contracts or agreements with non-parties (see 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[.]"]).
The Court has reviewed Defendant's proposed sealing of the documents filed as
NYSCEF Document Numbers 316, 383, and 388 (MS 14), as well as the targeted proposed
651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
redactions of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213,219,222,227, and 246
(MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 331, 363, 367, 371, 398, and 399 (MS 14), and finds
that they comport with the applicable sealing standard as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-
350, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive and confidential business and financial
information, including that of third parties.
However, Defendant's generalized assertions of good cause for the remaining Exhibits
filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 236 (MS 12); and 305, 318, 324, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345,
376, 378, and 396 (MS 14) do not establish a compelling justification for the complete sealing
that is proposed. While portions of these documents may include confidential business and
financial information, the proposed sealing is not adequately explained or justified. Thus, Array
should propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216
[a] and applicable case law. They may also provide evidence of the parties' reasonable
expectation of confidentiality in the arbitration to support sealing of records and the public
interest (or lack thereof) in the subject matter of the documents.
Any subsequent motion seeking to address the above concerns should adhere to this
Part's Sealing Practices and Procedures (see
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/comdiv/NY/PDFs/part3-sealing-practices.pdf),
including the requirement to submit an affidavit based on personal knowledge attesting to the
factual bases for redaction, unredacted copies of the documents with proposed targeted
redactions in highlights, and a spreadsheet setting forth a non-conclusory good faith basis for
each proposed redaction.
Accordingly, it is
651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
ORDERED that Defendant's motions to seal and/or redact (MS 12, MS 13, MS 14) are
granted in part, insofar as they seeks to seal the documents filed as NYSCEF Document
Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 316, 331, 363,
367, 371, 383, 388, 398, and 399 (MS 14), and is otherwise denied, without prejudice to filing a
new motion within 21 days to redact confidential portions of the remaining Exhibits consistent
with this Decision and Order and applicable case law; it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain the documents filed as NYSCEF
Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 316,
331, 363, 367, 371, 383, 388, 398, and 399 (MS 14) under seal, so that the documents may be
accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Owen v Array US, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 30000(U) January 1, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651471/2022 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. INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JASON OWEN, INDEX NO. 651471/2022
Plaintiff, 09/19/2024, 10/15/2024, - V - 10/30/2024, 10/30/2024, ARRAY US, INC.,MARTIN TOHA MOTION DATE 10/30/2024 Defendant. 012013014 MOTION SEQ. NO. 014 014
DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 249,250,251,252, 253,254,255,256,257,258,262,263,451,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,460,461 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 266,267,268, 269, 270,271,272,462,463,464 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,408,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,408,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407,408,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481 were read on this motion to SEAL/REDACT
Defendant Array US, Inc. ("Array"), seeks orders sealing and/or redacting exhibits that
were filed in connection with this proceeding as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222,
227, 236, and 246 (MS 012); 157 (MS 013); and 284, 286, 293, 305, 316, 318, 324, 331, 334, 651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
336, 338, 342, 345, 363, 367, 371, 376, 378, 383, 388, 396, 398, and 399 (MS 014). 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. VI, 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]). Additionally, sealing and/or redacting is appropriate to the
extent the documents sought to be sealed contain nonpublic information about confidential
contracts or agreements with non-parties (see 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[.]"]).
The Court has reviewed Defendant's proposed sealing of the documents filed as
NYSCEF Document Numbers 316, 383, and 388 (MS 14), as well as the targeted proposed
651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
redactions of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213,219,222,227, and 246
(MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 331, 363, 367, 371, 398, and 399 (MS 14), and finds
that they comport with the applicable sealing standard as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-
350, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive and confidential business and financial
information, including that of third parties.
However, Defendant's generalized assertions of good cause for the remaining Exhibits
filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 236 (MS 12); and 305, 318, 324, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345,
376, 378, and 396 (MS 14) do not establish a compelling justification for the complete sealing
that is proposed. While portions of these documents may include confidential business and
financial information, the proposed sealing is not adequately explained or justified. Thus, Array
should propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216
[a] and applicable case law. They may also provide evidence of the parties' reasonable
expectation of confidentiality in the arbitration to support sealing of records and the public
interest (or lack thereof) in the subject matter of the documents.
Any subsequent motion seeking to address the above concerns should adhere to this
Part's Sealing Practices and Procedures (see
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/comdiv/NY/PDFs/part3-sealing-practices.pdf),
including the requirement to submit an affidavit based on personal knowledge attesting to the
factual bases for redaction, unredacted copies of the documents with proposed targeted
redactions in highlights, and a spreadsheet setting forth a non-conclusory good faith basis for
each proposed redaction.
Accordingly, it is
651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
ORDERED that Defendant's motions to seal and/or redact (MS 12, MS 13, MS 14) are
granted in part, insofar as they seeks to seal the documents filed as NYSCEF Document
Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 316, 331, 363,
367, 371, 383, 388, 398, and 399 (MS 14), and is otherwise denied, without prejudice to filing a
new motion within 21 days to redact confidential portions of the remaining Exhibits consistent
with this Decision and Order and applicable case law; it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain the documents filed as NYSCEF
Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 316,
331, 363, 367, 371, 383, 388, 398, and 399 (MS 14) under seal, so that the documents may be
accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further
ORDERED that, to the extent they have not yet done so, the parties shall file redacted
copies of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS
12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 331, 363, 367, 371, 398, and 399 (MS 14); it is further
ORDERED that the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 236 (MS 12); and
305, 318, 324, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345, 376, 378, and 396 (MS 14) shall remain provisionally
sealed for 21 days from the date of the Court's entry of this Decision and Order on NYSCEF. If
the parties file a new motion (or new motions) to seal or redact confidential portions of the
documents consistent with this Decision and Order within that 21-day period, the documents
shall remain provisionally sealed pending resolution of that motion. If no such motion is filed
within 21 days from the entry of this Decision and Order, the parties shall alert the County Clerk
that the motion to seal the above-referenced documents has been denied by the Court and that the
documents should be unsealed on NYSCEF; it is further
651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
4 of 5 [* 4] INDEX NO. 651471/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 498 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/01/2025
ORDERED that as it relates to future submissions, made by any party, that contain
subject matter that the court has authorized to be sealed by this Decision and Order, parties may
file a joint stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future
submissions to be filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any
document is contemporaneously filed under seal; it is further
ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or
redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
1/1/2025 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
651471/2022 OWEN, JASON vs. ARRAY US, INC. ET AL Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 012 013 014 014 014
5 of 5 [* 5]