Arbitral Award in Dispute Between Former Twitter VP and Twitter Must Be Unsealed

From Friday's decision by Judge Gregory Woods (S.D.N.Y.) in Maheu v. Twitter, Inc.:

One distinguishing facet of the American legal system is its commitment to public access to the trial process. This legacy of "open justice" is as old as America itself. Respondents, Twitter, Inc. and X Corp., have asked that the Court seal an arbitral award because it was the product of a confidential arbitration proceeding. That fact alone does not overcome the presumption of public access to the award safeguarded by the First Amendment ….

On January 28, 2025, Petitioner Jean-Phillippe Maheu filed a petition to confirm an arbitral award issued in his favor [against Twitter] ….

The question is whether the arbitral award that Maheu (who had apparently been VP, Americas at Twitter) was trying to enforce could remain sealed; no, said the court:

The basis for Respondents' request that the Court seal the Award in its entirety is the fact that the Award was the product of a confidential arbitration process. Respondents argue that the "Second Circuit has repeatedly affirmed the 'FAA's strong policy protecting the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings,' which is a 'paradigmatic aspect of arbitration.'" And, Respondents contend, the Award "contains, among other things the 'contents' and 'results' of the underlying arbitration, which the parties agreed to keep confidential." …

The preservation of the confidentiality of an arbitral award, by itself, is not a "higher value" that overcomes the presumption of access afforded by the First Amendment.

Respondents offer no other reason for the Court to seal the Award in its entirety in this case. Here there is no indication that Petitioner had an improper purpose in filing the petition. Nor does any party argue that The [New York] Times seeks to unseal the Award for improper purposes. To grant Respondents' motion to seal the Award in its entirety on this record would require the Court to establish a general rule that the confidential nature of an arbitral award suffices on its own to override the First Amendment right of access to a document filed with the Court. The Court has no basis upon which to do so.

The fact that the Award contains financial information regarding Petitioner does not justify sealing the Award…. Petitioner asks that the Court redact the dollar amount of his financial award. And Respondents argue that the "Award also includes private financial information about Petitioner that warrants sealing." The Court acknowledges that courts "routinely permit parties to redact sensitive financial information" from public filings.

But neither Petitioner nor Respondents have provided the Court with an affidavit, or even a factual proffer, explaining the nature of the harm to Petitioner should the amount of the award be disclosed to the public in this case. And the Court observes that Petitioner did not assert any interest in sealing any portion of the Award when it was first filed. The fact that Petitioner did not ask for the information to be sealed initially suggests that the harm to him from disclosure of the information is not substantial. Lacking any factual basis to conclude that the disclosure of the amount of the award to Petitioner will result in concrete harm to him, the Court cannot make the specific finding required to overcome the presumption of public access to the Award.

Respondents have not provided the Court with sufficient justification to warrant overcoming the First Amendment presumption of public access to the Award….

Al-Amyn Sumar and Timothy Tai represent the N.Y. Times.