VERGARA v. MISSION CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered November 29, 2019, which, upon defendants' motion, directed the Clerk to seal the file of this action, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion denied, the sealing order vacated, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to unseal the order dismissing the action.

Although the action was dismissed after this appeal was perfected, this appeal, which addresses the propriety of the sealing order, is not moot to the extent that the dismissal order, which is on appeal, is under seal pursuant to the sealing order.

We reverse the order of the motion court for two reasons. First, the motion court erred by sealing the entire court file. As we have previously explained, “We recognize that it may be easier for the parties and the motion court to seal an entire court record, rather than make a determination on a document by document basis about sealing, but administrative convenience is not a compelling reason to justify sealing” (Maxim Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d 516, 518, 43 N.Y.S.3d 313 [1st Dept. 2016]). Indeed, “In camera review and appropriate redaction is a valid method of protecting trade secrets” (Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 A.D.2d 1, 8, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 [1st Dept. 2000]).

Second, defendants failed to meet their burden of showing grounds for protecting from public access any or all of the information in Exhibit A to the complaint, let alone the entire court record. They failed to show that Exhibit A, or any other document likely to become part of the record, contains trade secrets, confidential business information, or proprietary information (see Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Tilton, 165 A.D.3d 447, 449, 86 N.Y.S.3d 12 [1st Dept. 2018]; Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 905 N.Y.S.2d 575 [1st Dept. 2010]).