The opinion
Min Wu v Institute of Elec. & Elecs. Engrs., Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 31001(U)
March 24, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 159073/2024
Judge: Alexander M. Tisch
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 03/25/2025 12: 04 PM] INDEX NO. 159073/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH PART 18
Justice
-----X INDEX NO. 159073/2024
MINWU
MOTION DATE 11/04/2024
Petitioner,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
- V-
THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERS, INC., DECISION + ORDER ON
MOTION
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
were read on this motion to/for SEAL
In this motion, respondent seeks to seal certain documents it filed in support of its answer
to the petition in this action, specifically Exhibits B, C, D, and E to the Lindbak Declaration,
ethics complaints filed by certain IEEE members against other IEEE members (NYSCEF Doc.
Nos. 48-51 ); Exhibit F to the Lindbak Declaration, a letter sent to an IEEE Society Leader
advising them of disciplinary action against them which is labeled "IEEE CONFIDENTIAL -
CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52); Exhibit G to the Lindbak
Declaration, a letter from petitioner's counsel to respondent advising it of Dr. Wu intentions to
appeal the decision of the IEEE's Conduct Review Committee (NYSCEF Doc. No. 53); Exhibit
H to the Lindbak Declaration, a letter from petitioner's counsel to IEEE' s President demanding
petitioner's immediate reinstatement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 54); Exhibit I to the Lindbak
Declaration, petitioner's appeal submission to the IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 55); Exhibit J to the Lindbak Declaration, a copy of an IEEE Board of
Directors memorandum regarding the disciplinary action at issue labeled "IEEE
159073/2024 Motion No. 002 Page 1 of 4
[* 1] 1 of 4
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 12:04 P~ INDEX NO. 159073/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
CONFIDENTIAL-CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION: IEEE Board of Directors, IEEE Executive
Director and COO, Legal & Compliance Staff, Corporate Governance staff' (NYSCEF Doc. No.
56); Exhibit D to the Hinchey Affirmation, redacted minutes from the June 2020 IEEE Board of
Directors meeting at which revisions to IEEE Bylaw 1-110 and IEEE Policy 7.10, including the
creation of the CRC, were approved (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44); Exhibit E to the Hinchey
Affirmation, a copy of the minutes from the November 2020 IEEE Board of Directors meeting at
which Section 5 of the CRC Operations Manual- the section empowering the CRC to impose
disciplinary action- was revised (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45); and Exhibit F to the Hinchey
Affirmation, petitioner's submission to the SPS Board of Governors (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46).
22 NYCRR 216.l(a) provides:
"[ 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 ground
thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall
consider the interests of the public as well as the parties."
In Mosallam v Berenson (76 AD3d 345,349 [1st Dept 2010]), the court summarizes the
governing legal principles as follows:
"Although the term 'good cause' is not defined, 'a sealing order should clearly be
predicated upon a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action' ( Gryphon
Dom. VJ, LLC, 28 AD3d at 325). 'A finding of 'good cause' presupposes that public
access to the documents at issue will likely result in harm to a compelling interest
of the movant' (Mancheski, 39 AD3d at 502). 'Confidentiality is clearly the
exception, not the rule' (Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 93-94 [2001]), and the
party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling
circumstances to justify restricting public access (see Mancheski, 39 AD3d at 502;
Danco Labs., 274 AD2d at 8)."
Sealing may be appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of materials which involve the
internal finances of a party and are of more minimal public interest (see D 'Amocir v
Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, 17 Misc 3d 1130[A], 2007 WL 4126386 at 42 [NY Sup Ct,
159073/2024 Motion No. 002 Page 2 of 4
2 of 4
[* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 12: 04 PM] INDEX NO. 159 0 7 3/ 2 0 24
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
NY County 2007]). An order sealing court documents on grounds of privacy is often
appropriate where records to be sealed concern the identities, residents, or religious
affiliation of non-parties (see, e.g., Weinstein v Barnett, NYLJ, Mar. 24, 1995, at 30, col
1 [Sup Ct, NY County 1995]).
Some of the documents at issue (NYSCEF Docs. No. 48-52) are records of ethics
complaints made to the IEEE and subsequent proceedings. Document 56 is a resolution of the
Board of Directors labeled confidential which involves a proceeding against a non-party.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 46 is petitioner's submission in response to the ethics complaint against her,
which includes accusations of ethics violations against and by non-parties. Each document
involves ethics complaints and proceedings featuring at least one non-party to this action, and
they will be sealed.
Documents Number 53-55 are petitioner's counsel's communications to IEEE
officers about the ethics proceeding and determination. Any privacy rights in these
documents belong to petitioner, who opposes sealing. Documents 44 and 45, redacted
minutes of the Board of Directors' meetings at which the bylaws and the Ethics and
Member Conduct Committee Operations Manual were revised. Respondent does not
present good cause to seal these documents and the request to seal these documents is
denied.
For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion to seal (Motion Sequence No. 002), is hereby GRANTED IN
PART. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall redact in public filing in this action: Exhibits
B, C, D, and E to the Lindbak Declaration, ethics complaints filed by certain IEEE members
against other IEEE members (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 48-51); Exhibit F to the Lindbak Declaration,
a letter sent to an IEEE Society Leader (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52); Exhibit J to the Lindbak
159073/2024 Motion No. 002 Page 3 of 4
3 of 4
[* 3]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/25/2025 12: 04 PM] INDEX NO. 159073/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2025
Declaration, a copy of an IEEE Board of Directors memorandum regarding the disciplinary action
at issue (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56); and Exhibit F to the Hinchey Affirmation, petitioner's submission
to the SPS Board of Governors (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46); and it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk, upon service on him of a copy of this order, is directed
to seal the abovementioned document and to separate these papers and to keep them separate from
the balance of the file in this action; and it is further
ORDERED that thereafter, or until further order of the court, the County Clerk shall deny
access to the said sealed papers to anyone (other than the staff of the County Clerk or the court)
except for counsel of record for any party to this case, a party, and any representative of counsel
of record for a party upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from said
counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel to plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order by e-mail upon the
County Clerk (cc-nyef@courts.state.ny.us); and it is further
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
3/24/2025
DATE A(JltER M. TISCH, 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
159073/2024 Motion No. 002 Page 4 of 4
4 of 4
[* 4]