2415N-2416N. MAXIM INC. plf-res, v. JASON FEIFER def, HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC Proposed Intervenors-ap — MAXIM INC. plf-res, v. JASON FEIFER def, HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC Proposed Intervenors-ap — The Hearst Corporation, New York (Jonathan R. Donnellan of counsel), for ap — Sack & Sack, LLP, New York (Eric R. Stern of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited to the briefs, denied the motion of nonparty appellants Hearst Newspapers, LLC and Daily News L.P., to intervene in the action bearing Index No. 654137/2015 for the limited purpose of obtaining access to court records, and to grant public access to certain redacted records, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted in accordance with this memorandum. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 3, 2016, which denied the motion of nonparty appellants to intervene in the action bearing Index No. 162933/2015 for the limited purpose of obtaining public access to court records, and to grant public access to the complete case file in this action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted in accordance with this memorandum.
This appeal involves two related actions. In the first action, plaintiffs Maxim Inc. and Sardar Biglari brought claims for defamation, breach of contract, and fraudulent inducement against defendants Jason Feifer and Wayne Gross. In the second action, plaintiff Maxim sought, among other things, to enjoin defendants Feifer and Charna Sherman from disclosing confidential business information. In the first action, plaintiffs redacted several documents before filing them with the clerk’s office, and these documents remain redacted. In the second action, the motion court completely sealed the record based on a joint stipulation between the parties, which the court so-ordered. That stipulation did not fully explain the reasons for sealing or make reference to the standards in the applicable court rule. The proposed intervenors, Hearst Newspapers and Daily News, filed a motion to intervene in each action for the limited purpose of obtaining access to the sealed documents.1 The motion court denied the motions in identical one-sentence orders which contained no discussion of the press’s specific interest or analysis of whether the parties met their burden to justify sealing. These appeals followed, and we now reverse.
