# Bower v. Sewanhaka Central High School

> District Court, E.D. New York · October 21, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10305069

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 21, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10305069

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “lawsuits are rarely litigated under seal” because “the law disfavors closed proceedings”
- affirming denial of parties’ request to close a case “while leaving it permanently sealed,” after plaintiff was permitted to file the complaint under seal for 14 days and parties reached a settlement agreement within that time period

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
CAROLINE BOWER,

Plaintiff, ORDER
20-cv-1491 (RPK) (ARL)
-against-

SEWANHAKA CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL,
SEWANHAKA CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, and
ORONZO RUTIGLIANO, individually,

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------X
RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against her former employer and supervisor, raising claims of
sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation under state and federal law. See Compl.
(Dkt. #1). Before the defendants appeared in the case, the parties reached a settlement. See Mot.
to Seal Case at 1 (“Mot.”) (Dkt. #6). Because the parties settled while the case was still in its
early stages, the case file primarily consists of the complaint and docket sheet. Plaintiff now
requests, with defendants’ consent, that the case file be sealed. Ibid. As described below, I deny
plaintiff’s request.
DISCUSSION
“The public and the press have a ‘qualified First Amendment right to . . . access certain
judicial documents.’” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)
(quoting Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004)). These documents
include complaints, Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132,
139-40 (2d Cir. 2016), and docket sheets, Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 93. Although
judicial documents “may be kept under seal if . . . ‘higher values’ . . . so demand,” Lugosch, 435
F.3d at 124, such restrictions require “specific, on the record findings” that “closure is essential
to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest,” id. at 120 (quoting In re
New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987)). The “sealing of an entire case file” is a
“last resort.” Doe v. Berg, No. 15-CV-9787 (RJS), 2016 WL 11597923, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10,
2016) (quoting In re Platinum & Palladium Commodities Litig., 828 F. Supp. 2d 602, 603-04

(S.D.N.Y. 2011)); see Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 136, 140 (affirming denial of parties’ request to
close a case “while leaving it permanently sealed,” after plaintiff was permitted to file the
complaint under seal for 14 days and parties reached a settlement agreement within that time
period); Smith v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., 254 F. App’x 68, 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that
“lawsuits are rarely litigated under seal” because “the law disfavors closed proceedings”).
Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that the case “consists of allegations of sexual
harassment” that are “highly sensitive and uniquely private to the parties,” Mot. at 1, does not
establish that sealing the case file “is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored
to serve that interest,” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The fact that a case involves allegations of

sexual harassment cannot justify sealing the entire case file, in and of itself, because sexual
harassment claims are regularly litigated publicly. See, e.g., Rice v. Smithtown Volkswagen, 321
F. Supp. 3d 375, 381-82 (E.D.N.Y. 2018). Plaintiff’s further assertion that this matter involves
“a purely private concern,” Mot. at 1, is also unavailing. Courts have commonly found that, to
the contrary, “public interest in sexual assault and discrimination is very high.” Doe v. Skyline
Autos. Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). And while plaintiff is correct that scant
litigation activity occurred before settlement, see Mot. at 1, the Second Circuit has recognized
that the presumption of access to pleadings applies even when an early settlement is reached, see
Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 140 (noting that “[e]ven in the settlement context, the inspection of
pleadings allows ‘the public [to] discern the prevalence of certain types of cases, the nature of
the parties to particular kinds of actions, information about the settlement rates in different areas
of law, and the types of materials that are likely to be sealed’”) (citation omitted).
Nor does a 2009 Federal Judicial Center (FJC) publication on which plaintiff relies
establish that sealing is warranted. See Mot. at 2 (citing Sealed Cases in Federal Courts, FJC

(Oct. 23, 2009), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/sealed-cases.pdf). That FJC
publication studied sealed filings in order to determine what kinds of cases had been sealed, how
sealing had been requested, and how the sealing question had been decided, among other issues.
Sealed Cases 1. Plaintiff relies on the FJC’s short description of one employment lawsuit
involving sexual harassment, in which the district court determined that the record should be
sealed “for good cause shown.” Mot. at 2 (quoting Sealed Cases 13). That capsule summary
sheds little light on the facts or circumstances in that case, and falls far short of establishing that
“closure is essential” in plaintiff’s case. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120.
Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that sealing the case file is “essential to preserve

higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest,” see ibid., plaintiff’s motion to seal
the docket is denied.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Rachel Kovner
RACHEL P. KOVNER
United States District Judge

Dated: October 21, 2020
Brooklyn, New York

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10305069. Public record. Not legal advice.