Brooklyn Union Gas Company moves without opposition to seal two documents that it filed in connection with motion sequence 045 in this action. The motion is denied, and the Clerk is directed to remove those filings from restricted status.

The two documents at issue (one, a letter from Brooklyn Union's counsel to the court; the other, a transcript of the deposition of a Century Indemnity Company expert) discuss portions of an arbitration-type decision that Brooklyn Union believes should remain confidential. The decision was reached by a neutral adjudicator in a proceeding among parties whom the federal government has found to be potentially responsible for the pollution of the Gowanus Canal; the [*2]decision allocates among these parties the costs of designing the remedy for this pollution. The agreement among the parties that gave rise to this allocation proceeding provided that the proceeding, including the allocator's final decision, would remain confidential.^[FN1]

Brooklyn Union gives three reasons for sealing the two documents at issue based on those documents' references to the allocation decision: (i) The parties to the allocation proceeding agreed that it would be confidential; (ii) relatedly, "placing these documents on the public docket would be unduly to the other" parties to that proceeding, who are not parties here; and (iii) "maintaining the confidentiality of these documents will promote the voluntary execution of private dispute-resolution agreements." (NYSCEF No. 1105 at ¶ 4.) This court is not persuaded.

The confidentiality of the allocation proceeding, and the related interest in promoting private dispute-resolution agreements, are not alone sufficient to warrant sealing the documents at issue. As an initial matter, this court doubts that these interests, articulated at a relatively high level of generality, are sufficient to overcome the presumption in New York against sealing court records such as litigation filings. (See Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intl. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d 322, 324-325 [1st Dept 2006].) Although this court has previously granted sealing requests made jointly by the parties, it was the court's understanding from prior discussions with counsel that the parties agree that it is appropriate as trial approaches to lift access restrictions for documents previously filed under seal not seal more documents. And trial in this 20-year-old action is now scheduled to begin in a mere matter of weeks.

Additionally, the allocation proceeding and its outcome have been put at issue in this case. Among other things, they are the subject of multiple motions in limine filed in preparation for the upcoming trial in the action. Access to the documents is necessary to provide the full context for this court's decisions on those motions, which the court expects to issue shortly.

To be clear, the documents that are the subject of this motion, and those put at issue in the motions in limine relating to the allocation decision, discuss only the allocator's findings about Brooklyn Union, in particular—not the numerous other parties to the allocation proceeding. The allocator's analysis with respect to those other parties, none of whom are parties to this action, stands on a somewhat different footing. That analysis is not relevant to the pending motions in limine, or to the claims and defenses in this action more broadly. And Brooklyn Union and Century cannot properly represent here the particular interests of the other parties to the allocation proceeding.

This court concludes, therefore, that the full, unredacted version of the allocation decision that the parties previously filed under seal (see NYSCEF Nos. 580 and 780) should remain under seal. The full unredacted version of the allocation decision that Century attached to its supplemental filing on motion sequence 045 (see NYSCEF No. 1097) should be placed under seal. Brooklyn Union shall, by 5:00pm on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, file on the public docket a redacted version of the allocation decision. This version should redact in full the body text appearing on bates-stamp pages BU2042548 through 2042599 and BU2042606 through BU2042620; and should redact the name of the non-Brooklyn Union party appearing on bates-stamp pages BU2042538 and BU2042605.

Additionally, this court concludes that the parties' memoranda of law on the allocation-decision-related motions (mot seqs 037 and 045), and some of the related exhibits filed on those motions that reproduce reports of expert witnesses retained by the parties, should be unsealed.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is

ORDERED that Brooklyn Union's motion to seal (mot seq 054) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Brooklyn Union shall by 5:00pm on March 9, 2022, file on the public docket a version of the allocation decision (currently filed under seal at NYSCEF Nos. 580 and 780), redacted to the extent discussed above; and it is further

ORDERED that the court having determined, in accordance with Part 216 of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts, that good cause exists for the sealing in part of the file in this action and the grounds therefor having been specified, the Clerk of the Court is directed to seal the document appearing at NYSCEF No. 1097, and to separate this document and to keep it separate from the balance of the file in this action; and it is further

ORDERED that thereafter, or until further order of the court, the Clerk of the Court shall deny access to the said sealed documents to anyone (other than the staff of the Clerk or the court) except for counsel of record for any party to this case and any party.

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall unseal the previously sealed documents filed in this action at NYSCEF Nos. 575, 584, 587, 588, 589, 590, 610, 790, 811, 815, 816, 817, and 820; and it is further

ORDERED that Brooklyn Union shall by 5:00pm on March 7, 2022, serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on all parties and on the office of the County Clerk, which is directed to amend its records accordingly.