NY Court: Confidentiality Deals Not Enough to Seal Court Records
A NY court clarified that party confidentiality agreements alone cannot justify sealing court documents.
Why it matters: The decision reaffirms that courts prioritize public access over party agreements to confidentiality, raising the bar for sealing records. Lawyers must establish specific good cause—affecting litigation strategies and operational practices.
- On March 24, 2026, Justice Cohen ruled in Goanna Capital v. Blair that confidentiality agreements are not adequate to seal court records.
- New York's Section 216.1(a) requires a written finding of good cause to seal court documents, weighing public and party interests.
- Prior rulings, including IBM v. GlobalFoundries and Linkable Networks v. Mastercard, echo the same strict standard.
- Designating documents 'Confidential' in discovery does not suffice for sealing, per Justice Cohen's recent opinion.
The New York County Commercial Division continues to reinforce transparency in business litigation. In Goanna Capital Private Tech. II LP v. Blair (March 24, 2026), Justice Cohen held that a mutual party agreement to keep documents confidential is insufficient grounds for a court to grant a motion to seal records. The ruling aligns with existing New York standards for public access to court information.
Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts states that courts may only seal records upon a written finding of good cause, considering both public and party interests. The rule clarifies that confidentiality between parties does not meet this high bar.
This follows earlier Commercial Division decisions—including IBM v. GlobalFoundries (2023) and Linkable Networks v. Mastercard (2025)—where courts rejected sealing requests that relied only on party consent or broad claims of confidentiality.
- Justice Cohen emphasized: “The fact that the parties have stipulated to sealing documents, or that they have designated the documents during discovery as 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential,' does not, by itself, justify granting motion to seal.”
These decisions highlight the judiciary’s resolve to uphold open access, making it vital for litigators to present concrete, case-specific reasons when seeking sealed records. The trend signals growing scrutiny of routine confidentiality practices and impacts how firms approach sensitive disclosures in court filings.
By the numbers:
- 3—years of consistent Commercial Division rulings tightening sealing standards (2023-2026)
- 216.1(a)—NY rule requiring a written finding of good cause before sealing court records