The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 041) 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915 were read on this motion to SEAL The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 046) 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 1009, 1197, 1198 were read on this motion to SEAL. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In Mot. Seq. 041, Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) seeks an order provisionally sealing the unredacted versions of IBM’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (the “Support Memo”) (NYSCEF 858), accompanying affirmation of Pietro Signoracci (the “Support Affirmation”) (NYSCEF 859) and Exhibits A, B, F, G, H, K, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U (NYSCEF 860, 861, 865, 866, 867, 870, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880) if and until Defendant GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. (“GlobalFoundries”) seeks permanent sealing and/or redacting. In Mot. Seq. 046, GlobalFoundries moves to permanently seal the unredacted version of the Support Memo, the unredacted version of the Support Affirmation, and Exhibits A, B, F, G, H, O, P, R, S, T, and U to the Support Affirmation (NYSCEF 858, 859, 860, 861, 865, 866, 867, 874, 875, 877, 878, 879, and 880,1 also filed at NYSCEF 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 893, 894, 896, 897, 898, and 899, and 966, 968, 970, 972, 974, 976, 978, 980, 982, 984, 986, 988, 990). IBM objects to certain of GlobalFoundries’s proposed redactions to the Support Memo. For the following reasons, the motions are granted in part. Pursuant to §216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing “upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties” (22 NYCRR §216.1 [a]). The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public’s right to access” (Danco Labs., Ltd. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000] [emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Intern. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). “Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the rule, ‘the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access’” (Maxim, Inc. v. Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]). The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions of the Support Affirmation (NYSCEF 859, redacted version filed at 901), and has reviewed Exhibits A, B, F, G, H, O, P, R, S, T, and U to the Support Affirmation and finds that they comport with the applicable sealing standards as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-50, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive, nonpublic information about GlobalFoundries’s business and litigation strategy. However, GlobalFoundries has not demonstrated that the sensitive information contained in the Collier Deposition Transcript (NYSCEF 890), Noah Deposition Transcript (NYSCEF 894), Bartlett 11-f Deposition Transcript (NYSCEF 896), and Biggins Deposition Transcript (NYSCEF 897) cannot be protected through redaction. Accordingly, GlobalFoundries is directed to file redacted versions of these documents. The Court has also reviewed the proposed redactions of the Support Memo submitted by GlobalFoundries (NYSCEF 858; redacted versions filed at 900), and the version filed by IBM which take issue with certain proposed redactions (identified in green highlighting [the "disputed redactions") (NYSCEF 1198) and finds that GlobalFoundries has not met its burden to prove that all of the information it seeks to redact contains or reveals any highly sensitive or proprietary information that could "harm [GlobalFoundries's] competitive standing.” (Mancheski, 39 AD3d at 502). As IBM points out, some of the information GlobalFoundries seeks to redact has been made public through this litigation. Accordingly, GlobalFoundries is directed to file a public redacted version of the Support Memo, with the “disputed redactions” unredacted. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Mot. Seq. 041 and Mot. Seq. 046 are GRANTED IN PART; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 858, 859, 860, 861, 865, 866, 867, 874, 875, 877, 878, 879, 880, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 893, 894, 896, 897, 898, 899, 966, 968, 970, 972, 974, 976, 978, 980, 982, 984, 986, 988, 990, and 1198 under seal, so that the document may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further ORDERED that GlobalFoundries is directed to file redacted versions of the deposition transcripts and the Support Memo consistent with this Order within five (5) days of the date of this Order; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall unseal NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 870 and 876; it is further ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this Order, parties may file a joint stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any redacted document is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or redaction of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: January 8, 2023
