In this proceeding for leave to compromise causes of action for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death, and to judicially settle an account of the proceedings as administrator, petitioner moves for an order permitting the six settlement agreements at issue to be filed under seal with the court. Specifically, petitioner seeks an order redacting the individual settlement amounts and all identifying information regarding the settling parties. Petitioner does not seek an order of the court redacting the total amount of the settlement obtained. The underlying action arose out decedent’s alleged exposure to harmful levels of defendants’ benzene-containing products while he performed work on numerous vessels in navigation. The complaint alleged, among other things, that as a result of his exposures to benzene, the decedent contracted myelodysplastic syndrome which transformed to acute myeloid leukemia. Decedent and his surviving spouse, the petitioner herein, were named as plaintiffs in the action brought in the Court of Common Please of Philadelphia County, State of Pennsylvania. Upon decedent’s death in 2017, petitioner became the administrator of the her late husband’s estate and continued to prosecute the underlying action. After extensive motion practice, eight of the original nineteen defendants, as well as one non-party entity, entered into six separate settlement agreements with the petitioner. The unopposed moving papers consist of the Amended Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion, Attorney’s Affirmation in Support of the Motion with copies of the six executed settlement agreements accompanied by the Affirmation of Andrew DuPont, Esq., and an Attorney’s Affirmation Regarding No Opposition to Relief Requested Expected. Turning to the merits of the motion, the law in New York favors public disclosure of court records (see Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 AD2d 483, 485). In the Surrogate’s Court, all its books and records are open to inspection of any person at reasonable times except those which are sealed (see SCPA 2501[8]). Under the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts, a court may seal a court record upon a written finding of good cause (see 22 NYCRR §216.1[a]). The rule does not define the term good cause, but directs that the court consider the right of the public to have access to court proceedings and records, as well as of the parties in determining whether “good cause” has been shown (id.; see also Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Intl. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d 322). Confidentiality is the exception, not the rule, and the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access (Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 502; Matter of Hofman, 284 Ad2d 93). The court is not constrained to seal the record merely because the parties consented or because documents are marked “confidential.” (see Eusini v. Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc., 29 Ad 3d 623). Ultimately that determination rests upon the prudent exercise of the court’s discretion (see Coopersmith v. Gold, 156 Misc 2d 594, 606). Applying these principles, the court finds that movant has failed to meet her burden of establishing good cause to seal the settlement agreements that would outweigh the public’s interest. In both of the affirmations in support of the motion, the attorneys aver that a condition of the settlement between the petitioner and the settling defendants was that the details of the payments and the settlement itself be kept confidential. Although it is alleged that the settlement is conditioned upon it remaining strictly confidential, or it will otherwise be in jeopardy, such a condition or claim is insufficient to compel the court to seal the record (see Matter of Benkert, 288 AD2d 147; Matter of Hofmann, supra at 94). Furthermore, in support of the application, movant cites In re Estate of R.R., 582 NYS 2d 644 [Sur. Ct., Rensselaer Cty., 1992]) where the court found good cause to seal the records. Movant’s reliance on this case to support her application is misplaced. The similarity between the facts there and the facts here are merely that both proceedings involve a settlement of claims for wrongful death and allocation and distribution of settlement proceeds. In the cited matter, that court found not just that the interest of the public in a case involving the death of an 18-year-old in an automobile accident, was limited to mere curiosity as to the amount of the settlement, but also that the decedent’s medical records contained anecdotal items which were potentially embarrassing to the memory of the decedent and his family, and would serve no useful public purpose. That court went further to justify its sealing order stating specifically that it was not a case concerning a defective product or a dangerous situation that would involve matters of health or safety (id. at 646). Here, one of the causes of action in the complaint is, in fact, based on strict products liability of decedent’s alleged exposure to harmful levels of benzene-containing substances. The court is not compelled to permit the sealing of records in product liability and other tort actions, where information may be able to alert consumers to potential defects and other dangerous situations (see Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., supra at 486). Accordingly, the motion is denied in its entirety. This is the decision and order of the court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this decision and order to all parties who have appeared in this proceeding. Dated: June 22, 2021
