In a March 1, 2011, decision by Justice Driscoll, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to file his complaint under seal. Plaintiff-partner in a law practice with his father and sister brought an action for judicial dissolution of the firm and sought leave to file the complaint under seal in order to protect his father’s medical condition and history, as well as the welfare of the firm, the legal and financial interests of its clients and their confidence in the firm. Defendant-partners consented to plaintiff’s application. In balancing the interests of the public in accessing court documents with the interests of the parties in preserving confidentiality, the court concluded that “good cause exists to permit plaintiff to file the complaint under seal, in light of the parties’ shared concerns that public access to the complaint would potentially undermine and adversely affect the legal and financial interests of [the firm’s] clients.” The court noted, however, that potentially embarrassing medical information “does not, in and of itself, warrant the requested sealing” and emphasized that its decision on plaintiff’s motion was specific to the complaint. Any subsequent application to file documents under seal would require the court to “conduct an independent review of the documents or records at issue, prior to issuing its ruling.”
Cronin v Harris, Sup Ct, Nassau County, March 1, 2011, Driscoll, J., Index No. 22697/10
*For a more detailed analysis of this decision and its impact, see our colleague Peter A. Mahler’s post at New York Business Divorce.