The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 30 were read on this motion to SEAL COMPLAINT. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Combs Wines and Spirits LLC (“Combs Wines”) motion to seal is granted in part. The redactions proposed by Defendant Diageo North America, Inc. (“Diageo”) are accepted to the extent specified below. This sealing motion has an unusual posture. Combs Wines filed a Complaint asserting a single claim for an injunction against Diageo concerning the marketing and distribution of DeLeon Tequila. As a precaution, Combs Wines moved to seal its Complaint in order to provide Diageo an opportunity to argue that sealing is warranted in light of a contractual confidentiality provision. In fact, Combs Wines argues that broad sealing of the Complaint is not warranted. The substantive arguments in support of sealing are contained in Diageo’s brief. It argues that sealing is warranted but proposes more limited redactions than Combs Wines’s original motion had protectively proposed (NYSCEF 16 [Proposed Redacted Complaint]). However, the Court finds that Diageo’s proposed redactions are still too broad. Pursuant to §216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing “upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties” (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]). The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public’s right to access” (Danco Labs., Ltd. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000] [emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Intern. Fin. Co., B. V., 28 AD3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). Sealing motions should be decided expeditiously because they affect the public’s right of access (Mosallem at 353). Sealing should generally be limited to “trade secrets, confidential business information, or proprietary information” (Vergara v. Mission Capital Advisors, LLC, 187 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2020]). “Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the rule, ‘the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access’” (Maxim, Inc. v. Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]). Diageo argues that its proposed redactions (reflected in NYSCEF 15) are necessary to secure (i) commercially sensitive business records and strategy information concerning the DeLeon Tequila brand at issue (Cplt.
17, 20, 60, 68, 79, 80, 85, 86, 96); (ii) confidential records and commercially sensitive business records concerning the Ciroc brand, which it argues is irrelevant (Cplt.
