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.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

If the public docket is sealed are the party names redacted too? Knowing that an applicant sued his former employer may be enough for a prospective employer to pass judgment.

[ReaderY]

I’m not sure the contents of this case will end up so bad for this woman’s reputation. She is a hotel reservations clerk. I can think of a particular hotel chain that might be very happy to hire her.

[Armchair]

Which one is that?

[ReaderY]

Hint: The complaint begins with an incident that began when the plaintiff wrote a congratulations to President Trump on his election on a company message board, and other people in the company were upset by it.

[Armchair]

The complaint does not begin with that incident. The plaintiff did not write a congratulations to President Trump. A separate party entire did, and this person is still employed by the company.

The plaintiff did use profanity directed at that separate party (in a separate incident) and was written up for it

[CJColucci]

I have mainly represented defendants over the years, so this hasn't come up in my practice. Is this something plaintiffs-side lawyers have been warning their clients about? It seems like a good idea. Do you think we need a rule on it?

[David Bremer]

I certainly expect the better lawyers do, but that there are plenty of lawyers handling small cases that do not. Of course, those handling smaller cases and churning through files probably have clients who have less to lose by having their name out there.

Speaking from experience, I had one employment case that I could see generating some attention press. We spent a great deal of time talking about the potential that the issue could become public.

[Armchair]

Ooof. Reading the full report, it's pretty clear why the plaintiff would prefer it not come out. And this is the plaintiff's side.

[Brian Kennedy]

I worry about the privacy interests of non-parties whose names show up in employment cases. For example, "comparables" in discrimination cases: "I. plaintiff was disciplined for an offense even though employee [named] of a different race/gender wasn't disciplined at all for doing [much worse stuff, spelled out by the plaintiffs' allegations]." Or, "I plaintiff, wasn't promoted even though employee [named] of a different race/gender was promoted despite having a much worse qualifications, specifically . . . "

These comparables have made no choice to sue and put their names in the public eye. The plaintiff has no interest in defending them, and the defendants may have other fish to fry as well.

[Rossami]

My understanding is that third parties generally do have a privacy interest that courts will defend. Not to the point of sealing the entire case but often to the point of sealing or ordering redaction of the comparables' identifying information.

[Eric Rasmusen]

Privacy is a huge part of arbitration v. litigation. Why have I never heard that before? It sounds like for employment, it would benefit the employee, especially.