16-32 73

Hardy , et al. v . Kas zycki , et al.



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R C U I T 

## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E C E D EN T I A

L E F FE C T . C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AFT E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R ULE O F A P PE L L

A T E P R OC E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D O CU M EN T F I LE D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P PEN

D I X OR A

N E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O PY O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D B Y C OU

N S E L . 1 At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, 4 on th e 15 day of Ju ne, two th ousan d sev entee n. th 5 6 PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS, 7 DEBRA ANN LIVIN GSTON , 8 RAYMOND J. LOHI ER, JR., 9 Circu it Ju dges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X M. GU Y HARDY, i ndivi duall y and as a 12 13 parti cipan t in the L ocal 95 In suran ce 14 TrustFund

and the L ocal 95 Pe nsion 15 Fund, and on be half of al l oth er 16 perso ns wh o are , wil l be, or h ave a t 17 any t ime s ince 1/1/8 0, be en 18 parti cipan ts or bene ficia ries in th e, 19 JOSEP H HARDY, 20 Plain tiffs -Appe llees , 21 22 HARRY J. D IDUCK , HAR VEY L . SHE RROD, 23 Plain tiffs , 24 25 -v.- 16-32 73 26 27 EQUIT ABLE LIFE ASSUR ANCE SOCIE TY OF 28 THE UNITED STAT ES, 11 Defen dant- Cross -Clai mant2 Appel lee, 3 4 WILLI AM KA SZYCK I, TR UMP-E QUITA

BLE 5 FIFTHAVEN UE COMPANY , TRUMP 6 ORGAN IZATI ON, H OUSE WRECKERS UNION 7 LOCAL 95 P ENSION FUN D, TR USTEE S OF THE 8 HOUSE WREC KERS UNIONLOCAL 95 9 INSUR

ANCE TRUST FUND , KAS ZYCKI & SONS 10 CONTR

ACTOR S INC ., DONALD J. TR UMP, DBA 11 THE T RUMP ORGAN IZATI ON, JOHN S ENYSH YN, 12 Defen dants -Cros s-Def endan ts13 Cross -Clai mants -Appe llees , 14 15 -v.- 16 17 TIME INC., THE REPOR TERS COMMI TTEE 18 FOR F REEDOM OF THE P RESS, 19 Inter venor s-App ellan ts . 20 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 22 23 FOR A PPELLANTS: KATIE TOWN SEND, The Repor ters 24 Commi ttee for F reedo m of the 25 Press (Bru ce D. Brow n, on the 26 brief ), Wa shing ton, D.C. 27 28 Andre w B. Lacho w, Ti me In c., N ew 29 York, New York. 30 31 FOR A PPELL EES: MATTH EW R. MARO N, Th e Tru mp 32 Organ izati on, N ew Yo rk, N ew 33 York. 34 35 JaredE. B lumet ti, L awren ce S. 36 Rosen , LaR occa Horni k Ros en 37 Green berg & Bla ha, L LP, N ew 38 York, New York. 39 40 Appea l fro m ord er of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt 41 for t he So uther n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (G riesa , J.) .

21 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED 2 AND D ECREE D that the order of t he di stric t cou rt be VACAT ED 3 and REMAN DED . 4 Inter venor s Tim e, In c. (“ Time” ) andThe Repor ters 5 Commi ttee for F reedo m of the P ress appea l fro m the orde r of 6 the U nitedStat es Di stric t Cou rt fo r the Sout hern Distr ict 7 of Ne w Yor k (Gr iesa, J.) denyi ng th eir r eques t to unsea l 8 sever al do cumen ts on the docke t. W e ass ume t he pa rties ’ 9 famil iarit y wit h the unde rlyin g fac ts, t he pr ocedu ral 10 histo ry, a nd th e iss ues p resen ted f or re view. We vacat e the 11 order of t he di stric t cou rt an d rem and s o it can b alanc e the 12 presu mptio ns of publ ic ac cess to co urt d ocume nts a gains t 13 count ervai ling inter ests. 14 In 19 83, a memb er of a de molit ion-w orker s uni on fi led a 15 class acti on ag ainst vari ous p artie s inv olvedin d emoli shing 16 the B onwit Tell er bu ildin g, wh ich w as to rn do wn to buil d 17 Trump Towe r. I n 199 8, th e cla ss me mbers sett led w ith t he 18 vario us de fenda nts, and t he di stric t cou rt ap prove d the 19 settl ement . Th e cou rt se aled four docum ents on it s doc ket 20 conne cted with that settl ement : 1) a tra nscri pt of an 21 Octob er 26 , 199 8 con feren ce (d kt. n o. 40 9); 2 ) a p laint iffs’ 22 brief file d on Novem ber 9 , 199 8 (dk t. no . 410 ); 3) a 23 distr ict c ourt order appr oving the settl ement date d Dec ember 24 30, 1 998 ( dkt. no. 4 11); and 4 ) ano ther distr ict c ourt order 31 appro ving the s ettle ment datedFebr uary 9, 19 99 (d kt. n o. 2 412). In 2016, Time and The R eport ers C ommit tee f or Fr eedom 3 of th e Pre ss mo ved t o uns eal t hose four docum ents. The 4 distr ict c ourt denie d the ir mo tion, and this appea l 5 follo wed. 6 Two o f the docu ments the press orga nizat ions seek– -the 7 trans cript and the b rief- -have been dest royedpurs uant to 8 the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork’s stan dard docum ent 9 reten tion polic ies. We t heref ore r efrai n fro m rul ing o n the 10 unsea ling reque st as it p ertai ns to them . Se e Ind epend ence 11 Party of R ichmo nd Ct y. v. Grah am, 4 13 F. 3d 25 2, 25 5-56 (2d 12 Cir. 2005) . 13 The S outhe rn Di stric t sti ll ha s the two seale d cou rt 14 order s, ho wever , so we ma y rev iew t he de cisio n on wheth er 15 they shoul d rem ain s ealed . Bo th th e com mon l aw an d the 16 First Amen dment crea te pr esump tions that cert ain t ypes of 17 docum ents shoul d be publi cly a vaila ble. Lugo sch v . Pyr amid 18 Co. o f Ono ndaga , 435 F.3d110, 119- 20 (2 d Cir . 200 6). Both 19 apply to t he tw o cou rt or ders, but the p resum ption s of 20 acces s are simp ly pr esump tions –-the y do not a utoma tical ly 21 mean that the d ocume nts s houldbe u nseal ed. We re mand this 22 case to th e dis trict cour t for a de termi natio n as to wh ether 23 count ervai ling inter ests overc ome t he tw o pre sumpt ions.

41 The c ommon law presu mptio n of acces s att aches to 2 “judi cial docum ents, ” andjudi cial docum ents are t hose that 3 are “ relev ant t o the perf orman ce of the judic ial f uncti on 4 and u seful in t he ju dicia l pro cess. ” Id . at 119. It i s 5 settl ed th at th e cou rt-au thore d ord ers i n thi s cas e are 6 judic ial d ocume nts, and t hat t he co mmon law p resum ption 7 there fore attac hes. In r e App licat ion o f the Unit ed St ates 8 for a n Ord er Pu rsuan t to 18 U. S.C. Secti on 27 03(D) , 707 F.3d 9 283, 290 ( 4th C ir. 2 013) (“[I] t is commo nsens ical that 10 judic ially auth ored or cr eateddocu ments are judic ial 11 recor ds.”) ; EEO C v. Nat’l Chil dren’ s Ctr ., In c., 9 8 F.3 d 12 1406, 1409 (D.C . Cir . 199 6) (“ A cou rt’s decre es, i ts 13 judgm ents, its order s, ar e the quin tesse ntial busi ness of 14 the p ublic ’s in stitu tions .”). 15 The n ext a nalyt ical step is to dete rmine the stren gth 16 of th e pre sumpt ion a s it appli es to thes e doc ument s. 17 Lugos ch, 4 35 F. 3d at 119. We concl ude t hat i t is of 18 middl ing s treng th. The t wo do cumen ts ar e clo sely tied to 19 the e xerci se of judi cial power (the y are the exerc ise o f 20 judic ial p ower) , but the very stron gest presu mptio n is 21 reser ved i n civ il ca ses f or do cumen ts “u sed t o det ermin e 22 litig ants’ subs tanti ve le gal r ights .” B ernst ein v . 23 Berns tein Litow itz B erger & Gr ossma nn LL P, 81 4 F.3 d 132 , 142 24 (2d C ir. 2 016). 51 Court s hav e fou nd th at in teres ts su ch as prot ectio n of 2 ongoi ng in vesti gatio ns, s afety of w itnes ses, natio nal 3 secur ity, and t rade secre ts ma y be suffi cient to d efeat the 4 presu mptio n. I d. at 143. We leave it t o the dist rict court 5 to id entif y any inte rest in fa vor o f sec recy suffi cient to 6 defea t the pres umpti on th at co urt o rders be o pen t o the 7 publi c. 8 The F irst Amend ment also creat es a presu mptio n of 9 publi c acc ess t hat l ikewi se at tache s to court orde rs. There 10 is a long tradi tion of pu blic acces s to court orde rs, U nion 11 Oil C o. of Cal. v. L eavel l, 22 0 F.3 d 562 , 568 (7th Cir. 12 2000) (“[I ]t sh ould go wi thout sayi ng th at th e jud ge's 13 opini ons a nd or ders belon g in the p ublic doma in.”) ; the y are 14 judic ial d ocume nts, Lugos ch, 4 35 F. 3d at 120 (“The cour ts 15 that have under taken this type of [ First Amen dment ] inq uiry 16 have gener ally invok ed th e com mon l aw ri ght o f acc ess t o 17 judic ial d ocume nts i n sup port of fi nding a hi story of 18 openn ess.” ); an d pub lic a ccess play s a s ignif icant role in 19 the j udici al ap prova l of class acti on an d der ivati ve 20 settl ement s. B ut th e Fir st Am endme nt pr esump tion, like the 21 commo n law pres umpti on, m ay be over come by co mpeti ng va lues. 22 Lugos ch, 4 35 F. 3d at 120.

61 On re mand, the distr ict c ourt shall cons ider wheth er 2 any i ntere sts c an ov ercom e the comm on la w andFirs t 3 Amend ment presu mptio ns of acce ss to the two c ourt order s. 4 Any d ecisi on th at th e doc ument s sho uld r emain seal ed mu st be 5 suppo rted by “s pecif ic, o n the reco rd fi nding s” an d mus t 6 expla in wh y sea ling “is e ssent ial t o pre serve high er va lues 7 and i s nar rowly tail ored to se rve t hat i ntere st.” Id. 8 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , we hereb y VACAT E the o rder 9 of th e dis trict cour t and REMAN D for furth er pr oceed ings 10 consi stent with this orde r. 11 12 13 14 FOR T HE CO URT: 15 CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK 16

7