Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

:

COMPASS, INC., :

:

Plaintiff, : 25-CV-05201 (JAV)

:

-v- : ORDER

:

ZILLOW, INC., ZILLOW GROUP, INC., and TRULIA, :

LLC, :

:

Defendants. :

---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge:

On October 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a redacted motion to compel third-party Redfin

Corporation (“Redfin”) to produce three documents in response to Compass’s subpoenas duces

tucum. ECF No. 94 at 1. Attached to that motion were three exhibits, two of which were filed

under seal. ECF Nos. 94-1 (“Exhibit A”), 94-2 (“Exhibit B”). In connection with its motion to

compel, Plaintiff submitted a motion to redact certain information in the motion to compel and to

maintain Exhibits A and B under seal. Subsequently, Redfin filed a letter with the Court in support

of the motion to seal. ECF No. 108. Plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED.

The presumptive right of the public to access judicial documents is firmly entrenched in

both the common law and the First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d

110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Under the common law inquiry, courts apply a three-part test to

determine if sealing is appropriate. First, courts must determine whether the records at issue are

judicial documents, that is, is “the item filed . . . relevant to the performance of the judicial function

and useful in the judicial process.” Id. at 119. Second, if the records are judicial documents, courts

assess the weight to be given to the presumption of judicial access, “governed by the role of the

material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such

information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. Third, courts balance the presumption of

judicial access against “competing considerations against it,” such as privacy interests or the

confidentiality of business records. Id. at 120.

To determine whether the First Amendment presumption of access applies, the Second

Circuit applies an “experience and logic” approach, which “requires the court to consider both

whether the documents ‘have historically been open to the press and general public’ and whether

‘public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in

question.’” Id. (quoting Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)). “The courts

that have undertaken this type of inquiry have generally invoked the common law right of access to

judicial documents in support of finding a history of openness.” Id. Where the presumptive First

Amendment right of access applies, “documents may be sealed if specific, on the record findings

are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to

serve that interest.” Id. (citation omitted).

Having reviewed the material that the parties seek to place under seal, the Court concludes

that Redfin has made a sufficient showing that the information that they seek to seal, concerning an

internal email exchange and a deposition, qualifies as “confidential business information” that is

material to Redfin’s competitive position in the market and could potentially inflict “significant

competitive disadvantage” on Redfin through disclosure. Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin.

Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, since the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel for separate, jurisdictional reasons,

none of the information that Plaintiff and Redfin seek to seal was relevant to the exercise of judicial

power there. Accordingly, the Court finds that, in this instance, the “interest in protecting

confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment presumption of public

access.” /d. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 95, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is

directed to terminate ECF No. 95.

SO ORDERED.

tos

Dated: November 3, 2025 LOUWMLAAL. HAND

New York, New York JEANNETTE A. VARGAS

United States District Judge