Order | Filed: August 31, 2026
| Entered: August 31, 2026
Palmeira v. Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C.
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Leave to Electronically File Document under Seal Status Report Order
ORDER. The motion at ECF No. 80 is granted in part and denied in part.
The filing at ECF No. 80 is incorrectly labeled as a motion to file under seal an opposition to a motion for summary judgment, but it is, in fact, a motion to seal Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for a premotion conference on a motion for summary judgment. The Court has reviewed to documents that Plaintiff seeks to seal. The Court considers the motion under the applicable Second Circuit case law. "Judicial documents are subject at common law to a potent and fundamental presumptive right of public access[.]" Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 87 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 58 (2d Cir. 2020)). In Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit set out a three-step test for district courts to decide whether a filing can remain under seal. Id. at 119. First, the Court must "conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents,'" meaning that the item is "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). Second, the Court "determine[s] the weight of that presumption," which is "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. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)). Third, the Court is directed to weigh the presumption of public access attached to the document against the countervailing factors. Id. at 120. The relevance of a specific document does not depend on "which way the court ultimately rules or whether the document ultimately in fact influences the court's decision." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Rather, what is important is whether a document "would reasonably have the tendency to influence a district court's ruling on a motion." Id. "[D]ocuments submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion are as a matter of law judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches," and such documents "should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (quoting Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982)). Further, the presumption of public access is at its highest when the material is relevant to a court's decision on a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 50.
Plaintiff attached numerous documents to his opposition to Defendant's motion for a premotion conference. Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the parties, the documentation provided by Plaintiff did not impact the Court's decision to allow the summary briefing to commence, as there are significant disputes as to whether this case should be concluded now or go to trial, so the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF Order 7/24/2026. Although the documents submitted may be considered judicial documents at this stage, the presumption of access at this stage of the case is low because the only issue before the Court on the motion at ECF No. 74 was whether briefing should move forward on the proposed dispositive motion, not the merits of the anticipated dispositive motion itself.
Although some of the documents filed by Plaintiff appear to have been designated by Defendant as confidential, see, e.g. , ECF No. 80 -3, page 6, Defendant did not take a position on the motion to seal based on their designation as confidential, ECF No. 82 . Instead, Defendant did not oppose the sealing of the documents because Defendant takes the position that these materials are of questionable authenticity. Defendant offered the following: "[M]any of the exhibits appear to be incomplete documents or unauthenticated partial recordings, reconstructed materials, or documents typed or recreated by Plaintiff rather than proffered in their original form." Id. at 1-2. The Court agrees with Defendant's position that the Court's d... (truncated)