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

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on July 2, 2026

Index No. 654900/2022

Robert R. Reed, J.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 20, 21, 22, 23 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 79, 80, 81, 83 were read on this motion to/for SEAL.

WHEREAS, a summons was filed on December 20, 2022, followed by a complaint on January 3, 2023 (NYSCEF doc. nos. 1, 2); and

WHEREAS an order to show cause was filed on December 20, 2022 (motion seq. no. 001) seeking the sealing of plaintiffs' unredacted complaint; and

WHEREAS an order to show cause was filed on April 6, 2023 (motion seq. no. 002) upon an application seeking the sealing of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint along with certain documents annexed as exhibits to defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint; and

WHEREAS, an order to show cause was filed on March 28, 2024 (motion seq. no. 008) [*2]upon an application seeking the sealing of the unredacted version of defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims along with the sealing of certain documents annexed as exhibits to defendant's motion.

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 movants have failed to sufficiently demonstrate a legitimate basis for the redaction or sealing of the motion papers and pleadings identified herein. There is no showing that trade secrets are at risk of being divulged or that the motion papers and pleadings identified 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, as 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 (id. at 350; Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp v Bonderman, 71 Misc 3d 908, 912 [Sup Ct 2021]).

However, with respect to certain identified settlement agreements, letter agreements, and contracts, 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]). Sealing portions of a court file may be appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of materials which involve internal finances, confidential contract terms, or other privacy rights of third parties who are not litigants herein (Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992]; Mancheski v Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d at 502; Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, 17 Misc 3d 1130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52207[U] [NY Sup Ct. NY County 2007]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for an order permitting the filing of a redacted complaint and the sealing of the unredacted complaint (motion seq. no. 001) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for an order restricting the access to defendant's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint and attendant exhibits (motion seq. no. 002) is granted to the limited extent of permitting the sealing of Exhibit 2 (Master Product and License Agreement dtd 7/31/2006) and Exhibit 3 (Letter Agreement dtd May 8, 2013) as identified in the conformed copy of the order to show cause (NYSCEF doc. no. 23), and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion to redact and seal its memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counterclaims, and attendant documents (motion seq. no. 008), is granted to the limited extent of permitting the sealing of Exhibit A (March 21 2022 Settlement Agreement) identified in the conformed copy of the order to show cause as NYSCEF doc. no. 77 (NYSCEF doc. no. 83), and is otherwise denied.

DATE July 2, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.