Seaport Mgt. Dev. Co., LLC v Shop Architects, P.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Seaport Mgt. Dev. Co., LLC v Shop Architects, P.C. 2020 NY Slip Op 32528(U) July 30, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 657263/2019 Judge: Andrea Masley 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: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/31/2020 09:08 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 INDEX NO. 657263/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ANDREA MASLEY PART IAS MOTION 48EFM Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X SEAPORT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, INDEX NO. 657263/2019 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _ 0_03_ _ Plaintiff, -vSHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C., COLONIAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, AND SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SYSTEMS USA, INC., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X MASLEY, J.: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 102, 103, 104, and 105 were read on this motion to/for SEAL In motion sequence number 014, plaintiff Seaport Management Development Company, LLC (Seaport) moves to seal 3 agreements: (1) the Architecture Services Agreement entered into by Seaport and defendant SHoP Architects, P.C., (2) the Construction Management Agreement entered into by Seaport and defendant Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC, and (3) the Purchase Order between Seaport and defendant Colonial Electrical Supply Company, Inc. (See NYSCEF Doc. No [NYSCEF] 54, 55 and 56.) Seaport also moves to seal paragraph 5 of Colonial's counterclaim filed on NYSCEF Doc. No 71. Seaport argues that these court records at issue contain sensitive financial information such as pricing and payment structures. Disclosure of this information to 657263/2019 SEAPORT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC ARCHITECTS, P.C., et al. Motion No. 003 1 of 4 vs. SHOP Page 1 of4 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/31/2020 09:08 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 INDEX NO. 657263/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 Seaport's competitors and potential contracting parties could allegedly threaten Seaport's business opportunities. The motion is unopposed. While the press did attend the initial argument on the TRO and preliminary injunction in this case, the court received only one request to attend the argument on this motion, if any. There was no argument in the absence of opposition. There was otherwise no press or public interest in this motion. Section 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts empowers courts to seal documents upon a written finding of good cause. It provides: "(a) [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 grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard. (b) For purposes of this rule, 'court records' shall include all documents and records of any nature filed with the clerk in connection with the action. Documents obtained through disclosure and not filed with the clerk shall remain subject to protective orders as set forth in CPLR 3103 (a)." Judiciary Law § 4 provides that judicial proceedings shall be public. "The public needs to know that all who seek the court's protection will be treated evenhandedly," and "[t]here is an important societal interest in conducting any court proceeding in an open forum" (Baidzar Arkun v Farman-Farma, 2006 NY Slip Op 30724[U],*2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2006] [citation omitted].) The public right of access, however, is not absolute (see Danco lab, ltd. vChemica/ Works of Gedeon Richter, ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000).) The "party seeking to seal court records bears the burden of demonstrating compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access" to the documents 657263/2019 SEAPORT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC vs. SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C., et al. Motion No. 003 2 of 4 Page2 of4 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/31/2020 09:08 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 INDEX NO. 657263/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 (Mosal/em v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-349 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) Good cause must "rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action" (Danco Labs., 274 AD2d at 9.) In the business context, courts have sealed records where trade secrets are involved or where the disclosure of documents "could threaten a business's competitive advantage." (Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 350-351 [citations omitted].) Additionally, the First Department has affirmed the sealing of records concerning financial information where there has not been a showing of relevant public interest in disclosure of the financing. (see Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].) For instance, in Dawson v White & Case, the First Department stated that the plaintiff-appellant failed to show "any legitimate public concern, as opposed to mere curiosity, to counter-balance\c; the interest of defendant's partners and clients in keeping their financial arrangement private." (Id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Seaport has demonstrated that good cause exists to redact the financial information. including pricing and payment structures from NYSCEF Doc. Nos 54, 55, 56 and 71 because disclosure would harm a competitive advantage. (Mosallem, 76 AD3d, at 350-351.) Moreover, there has been no showing of relevant public interest in disclosure to counter-balance Seaport's interest in keeping its financial arrangement private. (Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the parties shall redact all references to pricing, payment structures, and other financial terms as directed by this' decision from NYSCEF 54, 55, 56 and 71; and it is further 657263/2019 SEAPORT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC vs. SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C., et al. Motion No. 003 3 of 4 Page3 of4 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/31/2020 09:08 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 INDEX NO. 657263/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 ORDERED that the County Clerk, upon service to him of this order, shall seal NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 71; and it is further ORDERED that within 10 days of this order being filed on NYSCEF, the parties shall file redacted versions of NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 71; and it is further ORDERED that until further order of the court, the County Clerk shall deny access to the unredacted documents 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 the counsel; and it is further ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of trial. DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D NON-FINAL DISPOSmON DENIED GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SEITLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 657263/2019 SEAPORT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC vs. SHOP ARCHITECTS, P.C., et al. Motion No. 003 4 of 4 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page4 of4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.