LW LLC v. MARK HANEY CHRIS LYSTER (2026)

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 73 were read on this motion to SEAL.

WHEREAS, a summons and complaint were filed on August 5, 2021 (NYSCEF doc. nos. 1, 2); and

WHEREAS, an order to show cause was filed on July 11, 2022 (motion seq. no. 003), seeking the sealing of a summons and complaint, affidavit of Chris Hagale, and certain agreements, budgets, and emails attached as exhibits to the Hagale affidavit, filed in support of plaintiff's default judgment against defendant Mark Haney (NYSCEF doc. nos. 41-50, 55-65); filed in support of defendant's motion to dismiss.

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts and in accordance with this court's discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether good cause exists to restrict public access (Macheski v Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 [2d Dept. 2007]), this court finds that movants have established "good cause" to restrict public access to some of the documents identified as having sensitive, proprietary information. No substantial interest would be furthered by public access to the loan agreements, business email correspondences, and corporate budgets attached to the Hagle affidavit as evidence in support of plaintiff's claim to obtain a default judgment. There is some showing that disclosure of the specific documents could harm plaintiff's business's competitive edge (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-49 [1st Dept 2010]), and the sealing of those documents is appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of materials which involve the internal finances and confidential contract terms of the parties (Danco Labs v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000]; Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992]; Mancheski, 39 AD3d at 502).

However, this court does not find a legitimate basis for the redaction or sealing of pleadings and affidavits. The public entitlement to judicial proceedings and court records is broad and there is no showing that trade secrets are at risk of being divulged or that the affirmation and pleadings would cause reputational harm (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-49 [1st Dept 2010]) (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 350 [1st Dept 2010]); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp v Bonderman, 71 Misc 3d 908, 912 [Sup Ct 2021]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an order restricting access to certain documents and exhibits filed in support of its motion for default (motion seq. no. 003) is granted to the limited extent of directing the sealing of NYSCEF doc. nos. 41-49 and 55-63, and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to seal NYSCEF doc. nos. 41-49 and 55-63, only, upon service on him of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED that thereafter, or until further order of the court, the Clerk of the Court shall deny access to NYSCEF doc. nos. 41-49 and 55-63 to anyone, other than the staff of the Clerk or the court, except for counsel of record for any party to this case, any party, and any representative of counsel of record for a party upon presentation to the Clerk of the Court of written authorization from said counsel and appropriate identification; and it is further

ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made 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).

DATE October 9, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.

Robert R. Reed, J.