Time Warner Cable Enters. LLC v Nokia of Am. Corp.

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on July 2, 2026

Index No. 650748/2022

Robert R. Reed, J.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 103, 104, 105, 106 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 011) 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

WHEREAS a summons and complaint were filed on February 16, 2022 (NYSCEF doc. nos. 1); and

WHEREAS on August 15, 2023, an order to show cause was filed (motion seq. no. 008) upon an application requesting the sealing of plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss, along with two attendant documents filed in support of plaintiff's motion (NYSCEF doc. no. 103); and

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2023, defendant filed an application for an order to show cause (motion seq. no. 009) requesting the sealing of its memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue (NYSCEF doc. no. 112); and

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2023, plaintiff filed an order to show cause (motion seq. no. 011) seeking the sealing of plaintiff's memorandum of law and reply memorandum filed in support of its motion for leave to reargue (NYSCEF doc. no. 122).

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, and in accordance with this court's discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether good cause exists to restrict public access (Macheski v Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 [2d Dept. 2007]), this court finds that the movants have failed to sufficiently demonstrate a legitimate basis for the redaction or sealing of pleadings and motion papers. There is indication that the public or press would have an interest in this matter and the public entitlement to judicial proceedings and court records is broad (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 350 [1st Dept 2010]); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp v Bonderman, 71 Misc 3d 908, 912 [Sup Ct 2021]). There is no showing that trade secrets are at risk of being divulged or that the motion papers would harm a business's competitive edge (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348-49 [1st Dept 2010]). Movants' arguments regarding the "confidentiality" of the motion papers and pleadings are unavailing.

However, with respect to certain identified contracts and expert reports, the court finds that the movants have established "good cause" to restrict public access, and no substantial interest would be furthered by access to that information (Danco Labs v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an order to seal plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss, along with two attendant documents filed in support of plaintiff's motion (motion seq. no. 008) is granted to the limited extent of permitting the sealing of Exhibit A (Master Product and License Agreement) and Exhibit E (Wicker Reports Excerpts) identified as NYSCEF doc. nos. 96, 100, and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's application brought by order to show cause to seal its memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue is denied (motion seq. no. 009); and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's application brought by order to show cause to seal plaintiff's memorandum of law and reply memorandum filed in support of its motion for leave to reargue is denied (motion seq. no. 011).

DATE July 2, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.