Court Denies Omnibus Sealing of Summary Judgment Motion Papers but Permits Sealing of Specific Exhibits

Posted: September 4, 2026 / Written by: Channing J. Turner / Categories Court Rules/Procedures, Sealing/Confidentiality

Court Denies Omnibus Sealing of Summary Judgment Motion Papers but Permits Sealing of Specific Exhibits

On July 2, 2026, in Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC v. Nokia of America Corporation, Index No. 650748/2022, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted in part and denied in part four motions to seal.

Over the course of summary judgment briefing, plaintiff sought to seal its moving papers and twenty-three attendant documents and exhibits, defendant’s memorandum of law and forty-two documents and exhibits annexed to it, plaintiff’s opposition papers and twenty-eight exhibits, defendant’s opposition papers and fifteen attendant documents and exhibits, and both sides’ reply memoranda. Defendant separately moved for identical relief. Applying Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, the Court declined to seal the motion papers themselves while permitting sealing of enumerated exhibits. The Court explained:

[T]his court finds that movants have failed to sufficiently demonstrate a legitimate basis for the omnibus sealing of all motion papers filed in support of, and in opposition to summary judgment. The sealing of pleadings and motion papers is disfavored, and there is no showing that trade secrets are at risk of being divulged or that the motion papers would harm a business’s competitive edge. Movants’ arguments regarding the “confidentiality” of the motion papers and arguments are unavailing. However, with respect to a number of documents attached to the motion papers as exhibits, the court finds that “good cause” exists to restrict public access, as no substantial public interest would be furthered by access to that information.

The Court identified sealing as appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of materials involving internal finances, confidential contract terms, or the privacy rights of non-party third parties, and permitted sealing of specified NYSCEF document numbers. It denied the motion to seal the reply memoranda in its entirety and denied defendant’s motion as duplicative and moot.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning the standard for sealing court records in commercial litigation.

To read more about the showing required to seal court records, see Schlam Stone & Dolan’s related Commercial Division Blog posts on a decision rejecting a sweeping request to seal more than sixty documents because the movants offered only vague and conclusory justifications and a decision granting sealing only as to documents containing confidential business information and nonpublic information about agreements with non-parties.