The opinion
Tollin v Verizon Communications Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33516(U)
September 30, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 653881/2024
Judge: Andrea Masley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03:20 P~ INDEX NO. 653881/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
DONALD A. TOLLIN, THE PAUL D. DEBBAN TRUST INDEX NO. 653881/2024
DATED 8/11/09, SENDY P MONGIELLO, and THE
TREPPEL FAMILY TRUST UA 08-18-2018,
MOTION DATE
Plaintiffs,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
- V -
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., HANS VESTBERG, DECISION+ ORDER ON
MATTHEW ELLIS, JAMES GOWEN, ANTHONY MOTION
SKIADAS, CLARENCE OTIS, SHELL YE L
ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S AUSTIN, MARKT
BERTOLINI, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L HEALEY,
KYLE MALADY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, DANIEL
SCHULMAN, RODNEY SLATER, CAROL TOME,
GREGORY WEAVER, LOWELL MCADAM, CARRION
RICHARD, FRANCES KEETH, and KATHERYN TESIJA,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17,22,23,24,25,26,27
were read on this motion to/for SEAL
In motion seq. no. 001, plaintiffs move to seal the unredacted copy of the
complaint (NYSCEF 2), the affirmation of Daniel Tepper, Esq. in Support of Application
for Sealing Order (NYSCEF 5), the proposed sealing order (NYSCEF 6), the unredacted
copy of the complaint with proposed redactions (NYSCEF 7), and a Confidentiality and
Non-Disclosure Agreement (NYSCEF 8) pending argument on this OSC. Essentially,
plaintiffs brought this motion to allow defendants an opportunity to review the complaint
for any information they believe should be sealed. In response, nominal defendant
Verizon Communications Inc. submitted an affirmation of counsel in support of plaintiffs'
653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page 1 of4
Motion No. 001
1 of 4
[* 1]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03:20 P~ INDEX NO. 653881/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
application (NYSCEF 26) and a proposed redacted complaint (NYSCEF 27). 1 Verizon
asserts that the information redacted pertains to non-public board materials, meeting
minutes, and other confidential, commercially sensitive information.
Section 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts empowers courts to seal
documents upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
"(a) [e]xcept where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter
an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole
or in part, except 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 the parties. Where it appears
necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and an
opportunity to be heard."
Judiciary Law§ 4 provides that judicial proceedings shall be public. "The public needs
to know that all who seek the court's protection will be treated evenhandedly," and
"[t]here is an important societal interest in conducting any court proceeding in an open
forum." (Baidzar Arkun v Farman-Farma, 2006 NY Slip Op 30724[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY
County 2006] [citation omitted].) The public right of access, however, is not absolute.
( See Danco Lab, Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 27 4 AD2d 1, 6 [1st
Dept 2000].)
The "party seeking to seal court records bears the burden of demonstrating
compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access" to the documents.
(Masai/em v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-349 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) The
movant must demonstrate good cause to seal records under Rule§ 216.1 by submitting
1 This action was originally assigned to the Hon. Anar Rathod Patel and transferred to
Part 48 as related to In re Verizon Communications, Inc: Derivative Litigation, Index No.
650730/2024. Therefore, the court will review this application despite the fact that it
does not fully comply with Part 48 Procedures.
653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 001
2 of 4
[* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03:20 P~ INDEX NO. 653881/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
"an affidavit from a person with knowledge explaining why the file or certain documents
should be sealed." (Grande Prairie Energy LLC v Alstom Power, Inc., 2004 NY Slip Op
51156 [U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004].) Good cause must "rest on a sound basis or
legitimate need to take judicial action." (Danco Labs., 274 AD2d at 8.)
Courts have sealed records where trade secrets are involved or where the
disclosure of documents "could threaten a business's competitive advantage."
(Masai/em, 76 AD3d at 350-351 [citations omitted].) Additionally, the First Department
has affirmed the sealing of records concerning financial information where there has not
been a showing of relevant public interest in disclosure of the financing. ( See Dawson v
White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].) Further, materials "involve[ing]
closely guarded information about current or future business plans or strategies, the
disclosure of which likely would provide an advantage to a competitor." (Cortlandt St.
Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 71 Misc 3d 908,910 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] [citation
omitted].)
Here, Verizon has demonstrated good cause to redact the complaint. However,
as to the affirmation of Daniel Tepper, Esq. (NYSCEF 5), the proposed sealing order
(NYSCEF 6), and a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement, no good cause to
seal these documents has been shown.
ORDERED that motion sequence number 001 is granted and the County Clerk,
upon service of this order, shall seal NYSCEF 2 and 7 (unredacted complaint with
proposed highlighted redactions); and it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk is directed to unseal NYSCEF 5, 6, and 8; and
it is further
653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 001
3 of 4
[* 3]
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 03 :20 PM! INDEX NO. 653881/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
ORDERED the New York County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed
documents with access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees,
the parties and counsel of record in the above-captioned action, and any representative
of a party or of counsel of record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written
authorization from counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that movants serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk of the Court
and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office in accordance with the procedures set forth
in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed
Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address
www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh)]; and it is further
ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings
that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed
sealing order to the court (via SFC-Part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing
another seal motion; and it is further
ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of
trial.
9/30/2024
DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
653881/2024 DONALD A. TOLLIN ET AL vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL Page4 of 4
Motion No. 001
4 of 4
[* 4]