The opinion
Midway Wind, LLC v Siemens Gamesa Renewable
Energy, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30399(U)
January 30, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 651234/2023
Judge: Nancy M. Bannon
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.
INDEX NO. 651234/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 293 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. NANCY M. BANNON PART 61M
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 651234/2023
MIDWAY WIND, LLC,
Plaintiff, 12/13/2024,
MOTION DATE 12/20/2024
-v–
MOTION SEQ. NO. 010 013
SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC.,
DECISION + ORDER ON
Defendant. MOTION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 010) 156, 157, 158, 159
were read on this motion to/for SEAL .
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 190, 191, 192, 193,
194
were read on this motion to/for SEAL .
In this breach of contract action concerning alleged defects in wind turbines purchased
by the plaintiff, a Texas wind farm, from the defendant, the defendant moves pursuant to 22
NYCRR 216.1 to maintain redactions to a letter submitted to the court by the plaintiff and certain
exhibits thereto (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 143-44, 149, 152) and to maintain certain other exhibits to
the letter under seal (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 145-48) (MOT SEQ 010). The defendant separately
moves pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1 to maintain redactions to the plaintiff’s memorandum of
law in support of its pending motion to compel (NYSCEF Doc. No. 172) and to maintain certain
exhibits filed in support of that motion under seal (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 175, 178, 181) (MOT
SEQ 013). By orders dated November 18, 2024, and December 5, 2024, the court granted the
defendant’s requests for TROs to maintain the subject documents under seal pending decision
on the present motions. The motions are granted in part, without opposition.
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1(a), “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 of the parties.” The
651234/2023 MIDWAY WIND, LLC vs. SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC. Page 1 of 5
Motion No. 010 013
1 of 5
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 651234/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 293 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
Appellate Division, First Department, 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). Because “confidentiality is clearly the exception, not the rule”
(Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 93–94 [1st Dept. 2001]), that Court has authorized sealing
“only in strictly limited circumstances.” Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intl. Fin. Co., 28 AD3d
322, 325 (1st Dept. 2006); see Mosallem v Berenson, supra. The burden is on the party seeking
to seal court records to establish “good cause.” Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517 (1st
Dept. 2017). Furthermore “[a] finding of ‘good cause’ presupposes that ... no alternative to
sealing can adequately protect the threatened interest.” Mancheski v Gabelli Group Capital
Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 (2nd Dept. 2007) citing In re Herald Co., 734 F2d 93, 100 [2nd Cir.
1984]). Appropriate less restrictive alternative relief may and should be granted to balance the
competing interests of public access and the need for secrecy or confidentiality. See Danco
Labs v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1 (1st Dept. 2000). It is well settled that
redaction can be such an appropriate alternative relief and is favored over sealing. See Id.; Jose
V. v Smiley & Smiley LLP, 214 AD3d 523 (1st Dept. 2023); Vergara v Mission Capital Advisors,
LLC, 187 AD3d 495 (1st Dept. 2020); Gliklad v Derispaska, 185 AD3d 512 (1st Dept. 2020);
Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516 (1st Dept. 2016).
In the business context, good cause may be established where trade secrets are
involved (see Matter of Bernstein v On-Line Software Inter. Inc., 232 AD2d 336 [1st Dept. 1996]
lv denied 89 NY2d 810 (1997); Matter of Crain Communications, Inc., 135 AD2d 351 [1st Dept.
1987]) or “where the release of documents could threaten a business’s competitive advantage.
(Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., supra at 488).” Mosallem v Berenson, supra at
350; see Vergara v Mission Capital Advisors, LLC, supra; Mancheski v Gabelli Group Capital
Partners, supra.
The defendant seeks to redact the plaintiff’s letter to the court, dated November 8, 2024,
concerning the defendant’s alleged noncompliance with its discovery obligations, as well as
exhibits to the letter – exhibits 1, 6, and 9r, consisting of email communications between the
parties’ attorneys regarding the underlying discovery dispute (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 143-44, 149,
152) and exhibits 2-5 to the plaintiff’s letter, consisting of three deposition transcripts and the
cover letter that accompanied a supplemental document production by the defendant (NYSCEF
Doc. Nos. 145-48)/ The defendant also seeks to seal exhibits 1, 4 and 7 to the affirmation of
Jessica Sabbath in support of the plaintiff’s pending motion to compel, consisting of two
documents produced by the defendant in discovery containing its employees internal
651234/2023 MIDWAY WIND, LLC vs. SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC. Page 2 of 5
Motion No. 010 013
2 of 5
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 651234/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 293 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
communications and a deposition transcript (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 175, 178, 181). The defendant
further seeks to redact portions of the memorandum of law in support of the plaintiff’s motion to
compel that discuss the associated exhibits sought to be sealed (NYSCEF Doc. No. 172).
As to all of the above documents, the defendant contends that redaction or sealing of is
necessary to maintain the confidentiality of its “highly sensitive” and “proprietary” business
information, including details of its proprietary technology and the names of non-party
customers, as well as sensitive and confidential business information of non-litigant third parties.
The court finds “good cause” only to support maintaining the provisional redactions
applied to NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 143-44, 149, 152 and 172 and only to the extent of redacting the
names of non-litigant third parties, as disclosure of this information could impinge on the privacy
rights of third parties who are not litigants herein. See Mancheski v Gabelli Group Capital
Partners, 39 AD3d 499 (2nd Dept. 2007). As to the remaining information sought to be kept
under redaction and the documents sought to be maintained entirely under seal, the defendant’s
conclusory assertions fall short of a “good cause” showing. With respect to the four deposition
transcripts sought to be sealed, which comprise some 700 pages of testimony, the defendant
does not propose any redactions or otherwise identify what information is purportedly so
sensitive as to warrant sealing. As to the redactions it does propose, the defendant claims that
sealing/redaction is necessary to protect sensitive details of its proprietary technology. However,
a review of the defendant’s proposed redactions, as well as the non-deposition documents the
defendant seeks to seal in their entirety, reveals that the defendant does not seek to protect
information regarding product specifications or other similar technical information. Rather, the
defendant principally seeks to seal or redact information regarding fires and/or other
malfunctions or defects in equipment it provided and/or serviced at other wind farms. However,
information regarding such malfunctions and defects is already public, as it forms a substantial
part of the plaintiff’s publicly filed amended complaint. Moreover, where, as here, a case
concerns an allegedly defective product, the interests of the public weighs in favor of disclosure.
See In Re East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation, 106 AD3d 473 (1st Dept. 2013) (court
denied sealing of settlement in wrongful death action arising from a tower crane collapse).
Indeed, 22 NYCRR 216.1[a] was enacted largely in response to concerns about “the practice of
sealing records of settlements in product liability and other tort actions where the information
might alert other consumers to potential defects.” Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
supra at 485-86. The defendant provides and research reveals no decisional authority where a
concern over disclosure of defective products warrants the sealing of any records. Indeed, logic
651234/2023 MIDWAY WIND, LLC vs. SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC. Page 3 of 5
Motion No. 010 013
3 of 5
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 651234/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 293 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
dictates that concern over disclosing defects in a product would weigh against sealing as a
matter of public policy. See Matter of Arb. Between Cyprium Therapeutics, Inc. & Curia Glob.,
Inc., 223 AD3d 1042 (3rd Dept. 2024) (compelling public interest in open access to proceeding
pertaining to the manufacture and commercialization of a lifesaving drug); In Re East 51st Street
Crane Collapse Litigation, supra.
Additionally, the fact that the documents sought to be sealed or redacted discuss
information previously designated as confidential pursuant to the so-ordered confidentiality
stipulation entered in this action pertaining to the production of purportedly confidential
documents in discovery “is not controlling on the court’s determination whether there is good
cause to seal the record pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1.” Eusini v Pioneer Electronics (USA),
Inc., 29 AD3d 623, 625 (2nd Dept. 2006); see Mosallem v Berenson, supra.
Finally, the court is cognizant that the documents the defendant seeks to seal in their
entirety, particularly the hundreds of pages of deposition transcripts, may well include the
names of non-litigant third parties, specifically other wind farms with equipment provided and/or
serviced by the defendant. As noted, however, the defendant does not propose any redactions
to these transcripts or otherwise identify with any specificity what information contained within
them warrants sealing.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the defendant’s motions to seal (MOT SEQ 010 and 013) are granted to
the extent that the names of non-litigant third parties in NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 143-44, 149, 152
and 172 shall be redacted, as “good cause” was shown for such redactions, and the motions
are otherwise denied; and it is further
ORDERED that service upon the Clerk of the Court of this order shall be made 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); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing redacted copies of
NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 143-44, 149, 152 and 172, to be available for viewing by the public via
NYSCEF, with revised redactions limited to those approved herein.
651234/2023 MIDWAY WIND, LLC vs. SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC. Page 4 of 5
Motion No. 010 013
4 of 5
[* 4]
INDEX NO. 651234/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 293 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.
1/30/2025
DATE
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
651234/2023 MIDWAY WIND, LLC vs. SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC. Page 5 of 5
Motion No. 010 013
5 of 5
[* 5]