Tollin v. Verizon Communications Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 33516(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: September 30, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 653881/2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Tollin v Verizon Communications Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 33516(U) September 30, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653881/2024 Judge: Andrea Masley 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. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03:20 P~ INDEX NO. 653881/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

DONALD A. TOLLIN, THE PAUL D. DEBBAN TRUST INDEX NO. 653881/2024 DATED 8/11/09, SENDY P MONGIELLO, and THE TREPPEL FAMILY TRUST UA 08-18-2018, MOTION DATE Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., HANS VESTBERG, DECISION+ ORDER ON MATTHEW ELLIS, JAMES GOWEN, ANTHONY MOTION SKIADAS, CLARENCE OTIS, SHELL YE L ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S AUSTIN, MARKT BERTOLINI, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L HEALEY, KYLE MALADY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, DANIEL SCHULMAN, RODNEY SLATER, CAROL TOME, GREGORY WEAVER, LOWELL MCADAM, CARRION RICHARD, FRANCES KEETH, and KATHERYN TESIJA,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,22,23,24,25,26,27 were read on this motion to/for SEAL

In motion seq. no. 001, plaintiffs move to seal the unredacted copy of the

complaint (NYSCEF 2), the affirmation of Daniel Tepper, Esq. in Support of Application

for Sealing Order (NYSCEF 5), the proposed sealing order (NYSCEF 6), the unredacted

copy of the complaint with proposed redactions (NYSCEF 7), and a Confidentiality and

Non-Disclosure Agreement (NYSCEF 8) pending argument on this OSC. Essentially,

plaintiffs brought this motion to allow defendants an opportunity to review the complaint

for any information they believe should be sealed. In response, nominal defendant

Verizon Communications Inc. submitted an affirmation of counsel in support of plaintiffs'

653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page 1 of4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03:20 P~ INDEX NO. 653881/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

application (NYSCEF 26) and a proposed redacted complaint (NYSCEF 27). 1 Verizon

asserts that the information redacted pertains to non-public board materials, meeting

minutes, and other confidential, commercially sensitive information.

Section 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts empowers courts to seal

documents upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:

"(a) [e]xcept where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except 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 the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard."

Judiciary Law§ 4 provides that judicial proceedings shall be public. "The public needs

to know that all who seek the court's protection will be treated evenhandedly," and

"[t]here is an important societal interest in conducting any court proceeding in an open

forum." (Baidzar Arkun v Farman-Farma, 2006 NY Slip Op 30724[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY

County 2006] [citation omitted].) The public right of access, however, is not absolute.

( See Danco Lab, Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 27 4 AD2d 1, 6 [1st

Dept 2000].)

The "party seeking to seal court records bears the burden of demonstrating

compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access" to the documents.

(Masai/em v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-349 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) The

movant must demonstrate good cause to seal records under Rule§ 216.1 by submitting

1 This action was originally assigned to the Hon. Anar Rathod Patel and transferred to

Part 48 as related to In re Verizon Communications, Inc: Derivative Litigation, Index No. 650730/2024. Therefore, the court will review this application despite the fact that it does not fully comply with Part 48 Procedures. 653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03:20 P~ INDEX NO. 653881/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

"an affidavit from a person with knowledge explaining why the file or certain documents

should be sealed." (Grande Prairie Energy LLC v Alstom Power, Inc., 2004 NY Slip Op

51156 [U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004].) Good cause must "rest on a sound basis or

legitimate need to take judicial action." (Danco Labs., 274 AD2d at 8.)

Courts have sealed records where trade secrets are involved or where the

disclosure of documents "could threaten a business's competitive advantage."

(Masai/em, 76 AD3d at 350-351 [citations omitted].) Additionally, the First Department

has affirmed the sealing of records concerning financial information where there has not

been a showing of relevant public interest in disclosure of the financing. ( See Dawson v

White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].) Further, materials "involve[ing]

closely guarded information about current or future business plans or strategies, the

disclosure of which likely would provide an advantage to a competitor." (Cortlandt St.

Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 71 Misc 3d 908,910 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] [citation

omitted].)

Here, Verizon has demonstrated good cause to redact the complaint. However,

as to the affirmation of Daniel Tepper, Esq. (NYSCEF 5), the proposed sealing order

(NYSCEF 6), and a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement, no good cause to

seal these documents has been shown.

ORDERED that motion sequence number 001 is granted and the County Clerk,

upon service of this order, shall seal NYSCEF 2 and 7 (unredacted complaint with

proposed highlighted redactions); and it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk is directed to unseal NYSCEF 5, 6, and 8; and

it is further

653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03 :20 PM! INDEX NO. 653881/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

ORDERED the New York County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed

documents with access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees,

the parties and counsel of record in the above-captioned action, and any representative

of a party or of counsel of record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written

authorization from counsel; and it is further

ORDERED that movants serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk of the Court

and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office in accordance with the procedures set forth

in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed

Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address

www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh)]; and it is further

ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings

that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed

sealing order to the court (via SFC-Part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing

another seal motion; and it is further

ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of

trial.

9/30/2024 DATE ANDREA MASLEY, 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

653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page4 of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]