MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER On September 23 and 30, 2024, Defendants Fox News Network, LLC and Ed Henry filed motions for summary judgment in this action. Doc. Nos. 367, 382. Plaintiff Jennifer Eckhart and both Defendants then filed letters requesting leave to seal or redact certain portions of Defendants’ motion papers, including (1) information that named or identified third-party women who allegedly had sexual or romantic relationships with Henry, (2) a full declaration submitted by one such woman, “Jane Doe 1,” (3) identifying information of third-party Fox News employees who were involved in complaints and internal investigations, (4) email addresses and phone numbers of non-parties, (5) Fox News’ confidential business information, including Henry’s compensation and the size of certain business expenditures, (6) sexually explicit messages between Eckhart and Henry, and (7) sexually explicit photographs sent by Eckhart to Henry. Doc. Nos. 374, 381, 393, 398, 400-01. The parties generally agreed that the first five categories of information should be sealed or redacted, but dispute whether the latter two should as well. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motions to seal or redact these materials except (2) the full declaration of Jane Doe 1 and (6) the explicit messages between Eckhart and Henry. While the (7) explicit photographs will remain sealed, the Court will unseal the verbal descriptions of the photographs provided in Defendants’ motions. BACKGROUND The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and history of this case, which it summarized in its opinion partially granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC, 20-cv-5593 (RA), 2021 WL 4124616, at *2-6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2021). In brief, Eckhart accuses Henry of sexual harassment, sexual assault, sex trafficking, and rape. See id. at *1. She alleges that the two met while employed at Fox News, at which point Henry pursued her, sent her unsolicited and inappropriate text messages, and manipulated her into having a sexual and often violent relationship with him. In one central incident in February 2017, Eckhart says that Henry lured her to a hotel room under the guise of giving her career advice but proceeded to handcuff and rape her. See id. Eckhart also alleges that Fox News, their employer, knew of and facilitated Henry’s misconduct by failing to discipline Henry after other employees submitted complaints against him and by retaliating against Eckhart when she sought to hold Henry and Fox News accountable for their conduct. Defendants contest these allegations against them. The parties have now completed discovery and both Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. Henry’s motion principally argues that Eckhart consented to the disputed sexual activity. See Doc. No. 389. Fox News’ motion asserts that it did not know about or condone Henry’s alleged harassment and that it did not fire Eckhart for retaliatory purposes. See Doc. No. 375. After Henry and Fox News filed their motions, all three parties filed various sealing requests asking the Court to seal the seven categories of information referenced above. LEGAL STANDARD Sealing requests are subject to the three-step test set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). This test requires the Court to first determine whether the documents at issue are “judicial documents” by examining whether they are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States v. Erie County, 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119). If the documents are judicial, then a common law presumption of public access attaches, and the Court must determine the weight of that presumption along a continuum from low to high. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995). The weight will be strongest when the documents will “directly affect an adjudication” of the merits and weakest when they will “play only a negligible role.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, the Court weighs the strength of the presumption of public access against any countervailing interests, such as the “privacy interests” of those involved. Id. at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court will grant a sealing request only if those countervailing interests outweigh the presumption of public access. DISCUSSION I. Identifying Information of Third-Party Women The Court first grants the sealing request as to the names and identifying information of third-party women who were romantically or sexually involved with Henry. To be sure, this information is contained within judicial documents, since these materials were submitted to the Court in support of a motion for summary judgment. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019). But the presumption of public access is minimal here, as the parties have proposed “narrowly tailored” redactions that conceal only the women’s names and other identifying information, neither of which will “directly affect [the] adjudication” of Eckhart’s claims. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, there is a substantial countervailing interest in maintaining the privacy of these women, who are all “third parties” and have chosen not to make public their relationships with Henry. See Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 61 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Turquoise Hill Res. Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-8585 (LJL), 2024 WL 81438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2024) (granting request to redact name of third party). Accordingly, the Court finds that the presumption of access is overcome and orders that the names and other identifying information of the third-party women remain redacted. II. Declaration of Jane Doe 1 Less convincing is the parties’ argument that the full declaration of one of these women — Jane Doe 1 — should remain entirely sealed. In the declaration, Jane Doe 1 details the romantic and sexual relationship she had with Henry over the course of several years. See Doc. No. 377-44. According to the parties, Jane Doe 1 is the same “Jane Doe 1″ in Eckhart’s operative complaint, who allegedly had an extramarital affair with Henry when both worked at Fox News. See Doc. No. 227 (“Compl.”)
