ESTATE OF CHRISTOPH H. RIEDNER, Deceased (19-284/B/C/D) — In this proceeding, the Limited Administrator of decedent’s estate seeks to compromise causes of action for decedent’s wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, and to account for her proceedings related thereto. Incident to this application, the Limited Administrator’s counsel, by Affidavit dated February 26, 2021, asks that the settlement amount and the identity of the settling co-defendants be filed under seal. Counsel also requests sealing to protect his client’s privacy interest. As this court noted in Matter of Nguyen (NYLJ, Feb 23, 2016, at 22, col 6 [Sur Ct, NY County 2016]), “[t]he law has always favored public access to court records which are not to be sealed ‘except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof (22 NYCRR 216.1[a]; Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 AD2d 483, 485 [1st Dept 1993]).” Further, a party seeking to seal the records bears the high burden of demonstrating “compelling circumstances” to justify restraining public assess (Doe v. New York Univ, 6 Misc3d 866, 874 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004]). The court must balance the interests of the public as well as that of the parties (id. at 875). Here, the record is devoid of any justification for sealing the petition and supporting papers filed with the court by redaction and deletion of those portions which contain the identity of the co-defendants and the settlement amounts to be paid by them. Counsel’s statement that redaction of this information is necessary to protect his client’s “from others learning of the settlement amount thereby compromising her privacy and security” is conclusory and does not provide sufficient support for a good cause finding (Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 94 [1st Dept 2001] [conclusory claim of need for confidentiality of settlement insufficient to seal record]). Moreover, it appears from counsel’s submissions that the principal reason for seeking sealing is that the settling co-defendants requested confidentiality incident to their agreement to settle the underlying wrongful death action. Such request, without more, does not constitute good cause. Additionally, the mere fact that the parties have entered into their own stipulation agreeing to maintain the confidentiality of the dollar amounts to be paid by the co-defendants and their identity does not exonerate the court of its responsibility to inquire as to the basis for the application and the need for sealing (see Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d at 93; Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 AD3d 181 [1st Dept 2010]). Petitioner has failed to establish good cause for restricting public access to the court’s records, and the request for a “confidentiality order” is denied. Clerk to notify. Date: June 24, 2021
