Yador v. Mowatt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x

DELA YADOR,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER

19-CV-4128 (EK)(RML)

-against-

JASON MOWATT,

Defendant.

------------------------------------x

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Before the Court are defendant Jason Mowatt’s motions

to seal portions of the trial record. See ECF Nos. 169, 182.

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the relevant

procedural and factual background. For the reasons outlined

below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

Legal Standard

There is a “strong presumption” that “judicial

documents” should remain unsealed. In re Demetriades, 58 F.4th

37, 45-46 (2d Cir. 2023).1 A “judicial document” is one that is

“relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful

in the judicial process.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006).

1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order

accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal

quotation marks.

Trial exhibits and testimony are judicial documents,

because they are a “direct part of the process of adjudication.”

Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Off., Inc., 26 F.

Supp. 2d 606, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Indeed, the presumption of

access to “evidence introduced in trials” is “especially

strong.” United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir.

1995). Such evidence will remain unsealed absent a showing that

sealing “is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly

tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120.

Discussion

Mowatt seeks to seal (1) all exhibits and testimony

from the damages phase of the trial, (2) select plaintiff

exhibits containing confidential business information, (3)

select plaintiff exhibits containing personal information, and

(4) testimony regarding his income and tax returns. The Court

addresses each category in turn.

A. Exhibits and Testimony from Damages Phase

Mowatt first asks that all exhibits and testimony from

the damages phase be sealed “pending the resolution of the

motion for an accounting and to set aside the verdict as

advisory.” See First Def. Mot. to Seal 2, ECF No. 169 (“First

Mot.”). This is appropriate, he argues, because if the Court

decides to treat the jury’s damages verdict as advisory, then

those exhibits and testimony “will have no bearing on the

outcome” of the damages calculation. Id.

This argument is unavailing. Mowatt cites no

authority for the proposition that the “strong presumption” of

public access to trial documents, In re Demetriades, 58 F.4th at

45-46, vanishes when the court treats a trial verdict as

advisory. And there is little reason to believe that it would.

The Court would consider, and likely rely on, the documents and

testimony from the damages phase when conducting a judicial

accounting. So, even if the jury verdict were set aside, the

damages adjudication would still hinge (at least in part) on the

same evidence Mowatt now seeks to remove from public view. The

Second Circuit has made clear that when documents “are used to

determine litigants’ substantive legal rights, the presumption

of access is at its zenith, and thus can be overcome only

extraordinary circumstances.” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz

Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016).

Mowatt has not shown such circumstances here.

B. Plaintiff Exhibits with Confidential Business Information

Mowatt also argues that certain exhibits introduced by

Yador during trial contain confidential business information,

and therefore should be sealed.2 The Court disagrees.

2 These exhibits are PTX-012, PTX-014, PTX-020, PTX-025, PTX-035, PTX-

068, PTX-070, PTX-072, PTX-096, PTX-114, PTX-159a, PTX-178, PTX-179, PTX-218,

“[T]he protection of sensitive, confidential, or

proprietary business information” can justify sealing. TileBar

v. Glazzio Tiles, 723 F. Supp. 3d 164, 209 (E.D.N.Y. 2024). But

“conclusory statements that documents contain confidential

business information” will not overcome the presumption of

public access. Id. Instead, the moving party “must make a

particular and specific demonstration of fact” as to why sealing

is necessary. Id.

Here, Mowatt has not sufficiently explained why the

exhibits in question should be sealed. In his briefing, he

relies on conclusory assertions that certain exhibits contain

information that could “undercut Trap Karaoke’s competitive

advantage,” “be misused by a competitor,” or “potentially

damage[] Trap Karaoke.” E.g., First Mot. 3; Second Def. Mot. to

Seal 3, ECF No. 183 (“Second Mot.”). But he does not

specifically explain why such competitive harm is likely to

occur. And this omission is particularly pronounced given that

much of the information in question is at least five years old.

“[T]he older the information is, the less appropriate it is to

seal that information, particularly when the party does not

and PTX-219. Mowatt also appears to suggest that these exhibits should be

sealed because they were marked “confidential” during discovery. First Mot.

3-7. But “the mere fact that [a] document was marked confidential during

discovery does not establish that sealing is required.” Syntel Sterling Best

Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., No. 15-CV-211, 2021 WL 1541385, at *2

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2021) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126).

explain with specificity why, despite the passage of time, the

information should still be sealed.” In re Keurig Green Mtn.

Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., No. 14-MC-2542, 2023 WL

196134, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2023) (collecting cases). So,

the dated information invoked by Mowatt “cannot support the

necessary finding of harm” absent a credible explanation as to

why continued sealing is necessary. See Dawson v. Merck & Co.,

No. 12-CV-1876, 2021 WL 242148, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2021)

(collecting cases).3

C. Plaintiff Exhibits with Personally Identifying Information

Mowatt asserts that other exhibits should be sealed

(or at least redacted) because they contain sensitive personal

information, including his phone number, email address, business

address, Venmo username, and “messages of a personal nature.”4

First Mot. 5-7. The Court agrees in part.5

3 Mowatt’s justification for sealing PTX-068 is slightly more specific.

He suggests that the exhibit, which contains a detailed schedule and

equipment list for a Trap Karaoke event, would permit a competitor to

“replicate a Trap Karaoke show” or to “hire the individuals listed on the

email.” First. Mot. 4. But it is unclear why a competitor could not acquire

similar information by simply attending a Trap Karaoke show. “Clearly, if

the information is already available to competitors, then it does not qualify

as confidential.” United Techs. Corp., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Grp. v.

Marshall, 464 F. Supp. 845, 854 (D. Conn. 1979).

4 These exhibits are PTX-073, PTX-139, PTX-163, PTX-179, and PTX-238.

5 The fact that certain evidence was admitted in open court does not

mean that post hoc redactions are categorically inappropriate. See generally

United States v. Akhavan, 532 F. Supp. 3d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (permitting

post-trial redaction of exhibits that were admitted in open court). Indeed,

in this case, the cat is not entirely out of the bag. The exhibits that

Mowatt seeks to seal or redact have not been filed on the public docket. So,

if a member of the public wishes to view an exhibit, they must obtain that

exhibit from the parties, who will have the opportunity to apply any

necessary redactions. Similarly, while the trial transcripts are on the

“Typically, sealing of personal information such as

the applicants’ home addresses, personal phone numbers, and

email addresses, that is not public is warranted unless that

information has bearing on issues before the court.” Farris v.

Avon Prods., Inc., No. 23-CV-2023, 2024 WL 4441811, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2024) (emphasis added). Here, Mowatt’s

personal contact information has no bearing on the issues before

the Court. So, the exhibits that contain Mowatt’s personal

phone number, email address, or Venmo username — which Mowatt

identifies as PTX-073, PTX-139, and PTX-163 — may be redacted to

exclude that information.6 First Mot. 5-6.

However, not all the information cited by Mowatt is

sensitive enough to justify sealing or redaction. Trap Karaoke

LLC’s business address is already public as a matter of New York

law. See N.Y. Limit. Liab. Co. §§ 203, 206. Furthermore,

Mowatt’s request to seal or redact the “messages . . . of a

personal nature” that appear in PTX-179 is also unwarranted.

First. Mot. 6-7. Mowatt does not explain why those messages are

so personally sensitive that they should be shielded from public

docket, members of the public cannot freely access them until June 30. See

ECF Nos. 161-164.

6 The Court notes that while several other exhibits in Mowatt’s motion

also contain personal contact information, he has not moved to seal or redact

them on that basis. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court makes clear

that its rulings as to PTX-073, PTX-139, and PTX-163 also permit Mowatt to

redact personal contact information from any other trial exhibits provided to

the public or filed on the public docket. He may also seek targeted

redactions of the trial transcript to remove any references to personal

contact information.

view. And the Court’s own review does not suggest that any such

explanation exists.

D. Testimony about Mowatt’s Income

Finally, Mowatt seeks to redact testimony about his

personal tax returns — specifically, his business income — that

was elicited on cross-examination. First. Mot. 8. This request

is both conclusory and overbroad.

“Sealing is warranted to protect personal . . . income

tax information.” Vanguard Dealer Servs., LLC v. Bottom Line

Driven, LLC , No. 21-CV-659, 2023 WL 4746180, at *1 (D. Conn.

Apr. 27, 2023); see also Solomon v. Siemens Indus., Inc., 8 F.

Supp. 3d 261, 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Tax returns are generally

afforded special protection from public disclosure.”). However,

any such sealing must still be “narrowly tailored.” In re

Applications to Unseal 98 CR 1101(ILG), 568 F. App’x 68, 70 (2d

Cir. 2014); see Fung-Schwartz v. Cerner Corp., No. 17-CV-233,

2021 WL 4776461, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2021) (declining to

seal “deposition [testimony] discussing tax returns” absent

“appropriately limited redactions”).

Here, Mowatt seeks to redact around thirty lines of

his testimony on cross-examination. But only a small fraction

of that testimony even references financial information. And

Mowatt has not explained why the financial information that is

referenced (i.e., business income attributed to Trap Karaoke in

2016 and 2017) is sensitive enough to justify redaction. The

Court therefore declines to redact the testimony at this time.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Mowatt’s motions to seal

are granted in part and denied in part.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee

ERIC KOMITEE

United State

s District Judge

D ated: June 18, 2025

Brooklyn, New York