The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DARLENE MCDAY, et al.,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:20-cv-233-JLS-JJM
v.
STEWART ECKERT, et al.,
Defendants.
Defendant Timothy Lewalski moves [365]1 to seal an August 13, 2019 arbitration
award by the State of New York Public Employment Relations Board [350-10] and a March 30,
2002 counseling memorandum [357-29] which plaintiffs have submitted in opposition to
defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions [365-
367], for the following reasons the motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
Familiarity with the relevant facts is presumed. Motions to seal are subject to a
three-part inquiry. First, the “court must conclude that the documents at issue are . . . judicial
documents”. Savage v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., 747 F.Supp.3d 578, 584-85 (W.D.N.Y.
2024). If they are, the court must next “determine the weight of that presumption [of
access]”. Id. at 585. Finally, the court must “balance competing considerations against” the
presumption of access, such as “the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency
and the privacy interest of those resisting disclosure”. Id.
1 Bracketed references are to CM/ECF docket entries, and page references ae to CM/ECF
pagination.
The arbitration award and counseling memorandum are clearly judicial
documents. “[D]ocuments used by parties moving for, or opposing, summary judgment should
not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons”. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, “the presumption of public access
accorded the document[s] is entitled to great weight”. Doe v. City of New York, 2019 WL
4392533, *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
Lewalski argues that his “privacy interests overcome the presumption to
access”. Baker Affirmation [365-1], ¶12. He contends that disclosure of the arbitration award
“would harm [him] in a professional sense”, and that disclosure of the counseling memorandum
would harm his reputation “because of concerns expressed during an employment
evaluation”. Id., ¶ 14. However, “[n]either the possibility of some harm to [defendant’s]
reputation nor to his employment prospects is a ‘higher value’ sufficient to overcome the strong
presumption in favor of access”. Doe, 2019 WL 4392533 at *2.
Lewalski suggests that his privacy interest is similar to those found to support the
sealing of documents in Suffolk Regional Off Track Betting Corp. v. Unities States Small
Business Administration, 2025 WL 1384157 (E.D.N.Y. 2025). Baker Affirmation [365-1],
¶13. I disagree. In that case, the documents at issue included “personal information, individual
employee identities, social security numbers, salaries, or specific payments to individuals”, and
the court concluded that “this traditionally private information weighs heavily in the Court’s
balancing against the presumption of access . . . and otherwise has no bearing on the lawsuit, and
therefore the public will not be prejudiced if denied access to this information”. 2025 WL
1384157, at *3.
Here, by contrast, Lewalski points to no similar traditionally private information
that should be shielded from public view. Accordingly, he has not sustained his burden to
demonstrate that his concerns outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Lewalski’s motion [365] is denied. Absent further order, the
arbitration award and counseling memorandum shall be filed on the public docket by July 3,
2025.
Dated: June 26, 2025.
__/s/ Jeremiah J. McCarthy ______
JEREMIAH J. MCCARTHY
United States Magistrate Judge