Another Reminder: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Ought to Warn Clients That Their Cases Will Be Publicly Available

From Judge Valerie Caproni (S.D.N.Y.) Tuesday in Hooks v. Bridgestreet Global Hospitality:

[O]n October 2, 2019, the parties informed the Court that they reached an agreement in principle, and this case was dismissed with prejudice …. [O]n July 18, 2025, Plaintiff moved to seal the public docket and associated filings in the case, as the "record contains sensitive personal information, including references to medical history and allegations of racial discrimination, which continue to cause reputational harm and professional hardship" ….

Plaintiff … argu[es] that the presumption of public access is outweighed by the following factors: the case was resolved without a finding of liability; the filings contain sensitive personal and medical information; the continued public availability of the record has caused harm to Plaintiff's employment prospects; there is no ongoing public interest in the contents of the file; and Plaintiff asked his former counsel to have the case sealed and relied on counsel's representations that the case would be closed ….

A brief excerpt from the plaintiff's declaration in support of the motion to seal the case file:

In 2018, I filed a civil rights action against my former employer …. Based on an arbitration clause in the onboarding paperwork, the Court compelled the matter to private arbitration. I had believed that the arbitration process would limit public visibility of the record, but later learned the docket remained accessible….

While the intent of the lawsuit was accountability, I did not anticipate that these documents would remain publicly available through court databases and search engines.

During arbitration and settlement discussions, I expressed concern to my legal counsel, The Harman Law Firm LLP, about the potential impact of public access to my case file. I verbally requested that steps be taken to seal or restrict access. Based on these discussions, I believed the matter had been resolved appropriately.

Back to the judge's opinion:

Plaintiff states that he relied on his former counsel's representation that the matter would be closed, and yet he attached as Exhibit A an email dated March 13, 2020, from an administrative assistant at the Harman Firm, LLP, that states that if the firm did not hear back from Plaintiff within 60 days, the firm would dispose of the case files consistent with its ethical obligations, but the email did not make any reference to having the Court seal the case files.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to seal the case is DENIED. Common law and the First Amendment protect the public's right of access to court documents. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc. (1978); Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino (2d Cir. 2004). This right of access is not absolute, and "the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." …

Plaintiff's motion to seal the entire case triggers First Amendment scrutiny. Among the documents Plaintiff moves to seal are the docket sheet, the complaint he filed, all other filings, and various court orders issued in this case. The docket sheet is the public record of the existence of this litigation. The remaining documents are "judicial document[s]," to which the public is presumed to have a right of access. See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP (2d Cir. 2016) (all pleadings, including a complaint, even in settled cases, "are judicial records subject to a presumption of public access"). Plaintiff made this motion nearly six years after the case had been terminated and cites only to vague claims that the record contains sensitive personal information, including references to medical history and allegations of racial discrimination which cause reputational harm and professional hardship. He claims that the equities favor sealing, and that the "trauma [he] experienced should never have become an open record subject to public misinterpretation."

The Complaint has two references to Plaintiff seeking "therapy" but has no other medical history information in it. Such cursory references, as well as vague allegations of reputational harm, do not overcome the presumption of access outlined in caselaw. The public holds a strong First Amendment interest in the judicial documents that Plaintiff moves to seal. The presumption of access therefore prevails unless the Court can make specific, rigorous findings that sealing the entire case is "necessary to preserve higher values" and "narrowly tailored" to protect this interest. Plaintiff has not made such a showing….

I've seen lots of cases like this, which make me think that many plaintiffs (especially in employment cases) don't really focus on how publicly accessible their filings will be, including to future employers. It seems to me that employment lawyers owe it to their clients to clearly warn them about such matters, before any public complaints are filed. Indeed, if there is an arbitration agreement, it may often make sense to go to arbitration at the outset (if the agreement so allows) and thus keep the matter private, rather than filing a complaint that remains public even if the case later goes to arbitration.

A bit of backstory from the Complaint, by the way, though this is just one of the items plaintiff complained about:

In November 2016, President Trump's election created severe tension in the office.

The Reservationist, … who is a white woman, wrote, "Congratulations President Trump!" on the board in the office. Mr. Hooks explained, "That's probably not the best idea in an office full of brown people," to which [the Reservationist] responded, "You had your time. It's our time now." At this point, … the New York Reservations Team Manager … began defending [the Reservationist], upsetting Mr. Hooks and the other minority employees in the office.

Mr. Hooks complained to about this incident and [a superior] responded via email a week later, saying only, "no talking about politics" in the office. Mr. Hooks responded to [that] email, copying two other Managers, … saying that BridgeStreet needed to revisit diversity training in the office to improve the BridgeStreet environment for their non-white employees. Yet, once again, Mr. Hooks received no response to his email.