USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nna nese nna nese naan □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ KK DATE FILED:_11/22/2023 GRAHAM CHASE ROBINSON, : Plaintiff, : : 19-cv-9156 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER ROBERT DE NIRO and CANAL PRODUCTIONS, : INC., : Defendants. :

eee eee KX

CANAL PRODUCTIONS, INC., : Counterclaim-Plaintiff, : -V- : GRAHAM CHASE ROBINSON, : Counterclaim-Defendant. :

eee eee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Graham Chase Robinson (“Plaintiff”) moves: (1) to maintain under seal Trial Exhibits 76 and 82 of defendants Robert De Niro (“De Niro”) and Canal Productions, Inc. (“Canal” and together with De Niro, “Defendants”), filed in connection with Plaintiff's Motions in Limine, Dkt. No. 438; (2) to file Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 99, 139, and 195 with limited redactions, Dkt. No. 451; and (3) to file Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 98 and 156 with limited redactions, Dkt. No. 457. Plaintiff also requests that the Court order the parties to file on the docket their respective Trial Exhibits with the redactions employed at trial, subject to two

exceptions for sensitive exhibits. Dkt. No. 503. Plaintiff’s motions are granted in part and denied in part. “The common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

(2d Cir. 2006). The court considers three factors in determining whether to grant a motion to seal: (1) whether the

record at issue is a judicial document; (2) the weight of the presumption of access to the judicial document; and (3) whether there exist countervailing factors that weigh against the presumption of access. Stafford v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,

, 69–70 (2d Cir. 2023). A court may maintain materials in court filings under seal only after “review[ing] the documents individually” and making “‘specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values.’” Brown v. Maxwell,

(2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

(2d Cir. 2006)). The Court has reviewed each of the documents at issue in Plaintiff’s motions. The motion at Dkt. No. 438 is granted in part: Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 76 may be maintained under

seal, while Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 82 should be filed with email addresses and telephone numbers redacted. The motions at Dkt. Nos. 451 and 457 are granted in full. The Court denies, however, Plaintiff’s request that the Court order the parties to file on the docket their respective Trial Exhibits with the redactions employed at trial. Dkt. No. 503. The Courtroom was open for members of the public at large to attend the Trial, at which they could freely view and take notes on the Trial Exhibits. Thus, the public at large did have a right of access to evidence introduced in the Trial. The Court therefore declines to order the parties to file their Trial Exhibits on the docket. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 438, 451 and 457.

SO ORDERED. eo er Dated: November 22, 2023 wt RE ere. New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge