Bruce Bernstein vs. Journalist Teri Buhl Court Transcript 3.5.19 New York Supreme Court

1
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART: 23
2 -------------------------------------------------------X
ANONYMOUS,
3
Plaintiff,
4
-against-
5
ANONYMOUS,
6
Defendant.
7 -------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. 655887-2018 80 Centre Street
8 New York, New York
March 5, 2019
9
10
B E F O R E:
11
HONORABLE W. FRANC PERRY, Justice
12
13
A P P E A R A N C E S:
14
15 CANE LAW LLP

Attorneys for the Plaintiff
16 200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
17 BY: PETER S. CANE, ESQ.
18 DAVID BOLTON, ESQ.

Attorneys for the Defendant
19 666 Old Country Road, Suite 509
Garden City, New York 11530
20
21
22
23 (Continued.)
24
25
2
2 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued.)
3 BAKER HOSTETLER
Attorneys for Respondent Buhl
4 Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue N,W.
5 Washington, D.C. 20036
45 Rockefeller Plaza
6 New York, New York 10111
BY: MARK I BAILEN, ESQ.
7 PETER B. SHAPIRO, ESQ.
8 CKR LAW
Attorneys for Respondents Moreton Binn, Marisol
9 Binn, Marisol F, LLC, and CKR Law
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor
BY: MICHAEL J. MALONEY, ESQ.
11 ROSANNE E. FELICELLO, ESQ.
12 THE MCPHERSON FIRM, P.C.

Attorneys for the Respondent, The McPherson Firm
13 Tower 45
120 West 45th Street, 28th Floor
BY: DEEPTI SHENOY, ESQ.
15
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
16 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press
17 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10020
18 BY: ROBERT D. BALIN, ESQ.
19 MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION ACCESS CLINIC

Attorneys for Amici Curiae, 16 News Organizations
20 and Press Freedom Groups
1675 Broadway, 19th Floor
BY: DAVID A. SCHULZ, ESQ.
22
23
24
Lisa A. Casey
25 Official Court Reporter
Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
3
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Would you please
2 state your names and appearances for the record?
3 MR. CANE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Peter

4 Cane for the petitioner.
5 MR. BAILEN: Mark Bailen for respondent, Teri
6 Buhl, with me is Peter Shapiro, and Teri Buhl is in the

7 gallery.
8 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, Michael Maloney on
9 behalf of respondents, CKR Law and the Binns, and my

10 partner, Rosanne Felicello.
11 THE COURT: Is there anyone here representing
12 the remaining two respondents?

13 MR. BOLTON: Yes, your Honor. David Bolton
14 for Sheryl Aufrichtig
15 MS. SHENOY: Deepti Shenoy for the McPherson

16 Firm.
17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
18 MR. CANE: Your Honor, there's also another
19 respondent. The Cohen Clair Law Firm didn't file a

20 response, and is not represented here today.
21 THE COURT: We'll put that on the record,
22 because we didn't see anything from them, and we didn't

23 know if they were coming here.
24 Yes, counsel?
25 MR. BALIN: Your Honor, I'm Robert Balin,

4
Proceedings
1 Davis, Wright, Tremaine, for Amici Reporters Committee
2 for Freedom of the Press.
3 MR. SCHULZ: For the record, Judge, I'm David

4 Schulz with the Media Freedom and Information Access
5 Clinic, also here on behalf of Amici.
6 THE COURT: Is there anyone else who would

7 like to place their appearance on the record?
8 All right, then. We are ready to proceed in
9 this matter. Counsel for the petitioner, this is your

10 petition.
11 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor. It's good
12 to see that the first amendment is so well protected in

13 this courtroom this afternoon. I'm not sure, though,
14 it's justified in this case. First, as an
15 administrative matter, there was no response filed by

16 either the McPherson Firm or the Cohen Clair Law Firm.
17 The McPherson Firm is represented here today. I think
18 they are going to take the position they weren't served,
19 but this is the first I've heard of them. From them,

20 rather. Also the first time I've heard of them. And my
21 understanding, from a representation from counsel for
22 Ms. Aufrichtig, Ms. Aufrichtig has no objection to the

23 relief sought in the petition as to both the sealing,
24 and the underlying application for pre-action discovery.
25 THE COURT: Counsel, why should I seal this

5
Proceedings
1 matter?
2 MR. CANE: Because there is -- the good cause
3 is, there are two problems that my client has. He

4 produced the documents at issue, pursuant to the terms
5 of the confidentiality agreement. Then the federal
6 court sealed the record. And just as an update, I

7 submitted this with the responsive brief, memo, I filed
8 last night, but Judge Stanton --
9 THE COURT: On March 8th there's something

10 happening; right?
11 MR. CANE: March 1st, yes.
12 THE COURT: Something is supposed to happen.

13 You are supposed to do something in the coming week, I
14 believe.
15 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, Judge, I think we

16 need to back up a little bit. The judge sealed certain
17 documents on the record in the federal case on the
18 consent of all parties to that case, subject to my
19 client's reservation of rights to challenge the sealing

20 of those records. We continue to reserve our rights to
21 challenge the sealing of those records.
22 The other week, Judge Stanton issued an order,

23 and I have it in front of me here. I'm going read the
24 text for the record.
25 THE COURT: We have it, too.

6
Proceedings
1 MR. MALONEY: Okay. Basically, it says that
2 unless good cause is shown by this Friday, the judge
3 will lift the sealing of all material except for that

4 concerning Mr. Bernstein's divorce.
5 MR. CANE: Which shall remain. Which -- well,
6 finish what it says. It says, "which shall remain

7 sealed," so Judge Stanton has determined that those
8 documents should stay out of the public record.
9 THE COURT: I'm not sure that's what it says.

10 MR. CANE: It says documents, all material
11 concerning Mr. Bernstein's divorce, shall remain sealed.
12 THE COURT: But continue.

13 MR. CANE: That's dated --
14 THE COURT: Unless. That's all it says?
15 MR. CANE: May I hand this up, your Honor?

16 (Whereupon, a document was handed to the
17 Court.)
18 MR. CANE: It's an exception to the general
19 ruling.
20 THE COURT: Unless good cause is shown to the
21 contrary.
22 MR. CANE: Except that concerning

23 Mr. Bernstein's divorce, which shall remain sealed,
24 irrespective of whether good cause is shown to the
25 contrary. That's what the order says.

7
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Well, we are not going to sit here
2 and argue Judge Stanton's order. We have enough before
3 us at this point about which we can discuss, so please

4 continue with regards to why I should seal this file,
5 why the parties should appear Anonymous versus
6 Anonymous.
7 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor. So, as I
8 said, first my client produced a document pursuant to a
9 confidentiality agreement in order to fulfill his

10 obligation in his divorce case, and of course there's a
11 separate statute in the domestic relations law that
12 provides that all documents relating to the -- filed in

13 the domestic relations case are to be sealed from the
14 public. Then there was an order issued by Judge Stanton
15 which is subject to no interpretation, the original

16 order which sealed the record and separately sealed the
17 email from Ms. Buhl that enclosed a confidential
18 document that she provided to counsel for CKR Law -- at
19 CKR Law.
20 THE COURT: So Ms. Buhl provided it?
21 MR. CANE: I'm sorry. Ms. Aufrichtig provided
22 it.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Because you said Ms. Buhl.
24 MR. CANE: I meant to say Ms. Aufrichtig.
25 THE COURT: Just assume for the sake of this

8
Proceedings
1 afternoon that my team and I have read all of the
2 documents that you have submitted. I even read last
3 night. So continue.
4 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor. I
5 appreciate that.
6 So we have these two problems on the interest

7 of a private party, when the Court weighs of interests
8 of a private party versus the public interest. The
9 private party produced documents in a divorce proceeding

10 that he reasonably expected would be maintained as
11 confidential, and then when Ms. Aufrichtig provided them
12 to counsel, the counsel before Judge Stanton received,

13 obtained an order sealing the record there. So six
14 months after Judge Stanton sealed the record, Ms. Buhl
15 published these sealed records.

16 THE COURT: But wasn't there, counsel, a lapse
17 of two days between the time that the record was
18 unsealed until the judge sealed the record? So couldn't
19 it be argued that anyone could have given, or Ms. Buhl

20 could have gone into the file, and gotten it herself?
21 Were it not for that lapse, the Court would have an
22 easier time in making this decision, but there was a

23 two-day lapse when the document was not sealed. Who is
24 to say that the law firm who was in the federal court
25 knew that this document was a part of the exchange

9
Proceedings
1 during the divorce proceedings and was subject to a
2 confidentiality agreement? That's an assumption that
3 we're making. But go ahead.

4 MR. CANE: And thank you, your Honor, for
5 making the case as so why I need pre-action discovery to
6 determine all of these very questions.

7 But the six-month lapse between the two days
8 that it was out in the open, versus when it was
9 published by Ms. Buhl, leaves answer -- or raises more

10 questions than it answers. It's possible, but the
11 timing indicates it wasn't a certainty. If there was
12 any reason to believe that's what happened, that that

13 two-day gap is the reason that that document became
14 public and was published on the internet, or its
15 substantive contents was, somebody would have made that

16 argument, but no one has really shown any fact to
17 indicate that that two-day gap had anything to do with
18 its being publicly disclosed.
19 So what is the public's interest in my

20 client's financial disclosures in his divorce? We have
21 sought -- since you have read the papers, you have seen
22 that there are a legion of cases in this court, in the

23 First Department, and other Appellate Division
24 departments, that say the public doesn't have an
25 interest.
10
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: But counsel, I'm sorry, don't you
2 have it switched around? Don't we go into these cases
3 understanding and assuming that the public has the

4 right, under the bright light, to have access to court
5 documents, and it's your burden to show why the public
6 should not have an interest in this? Because there a

7 recent Appellate Division case in 2013, which was cited
8 in 2018, where a blogger, or it's a company that gave
9 running advice to people who were undergoing financial

10 difficulties, and the parties sought not to have that
11 information disclosed, and the Appellate Division
12 reversed the Supreme Court First Department saying, No,

13 the public has every right to see that information,
14 especially when the entity is a newsworthy entity,
15 especially what the person publishes news, and we have

16 that presumption of showing that light, especially, you
17 know, given the situation that we have today. So that's
18 why I'm saying, why should we seal this, in light of all
19 of that? Why should your client be referred to as

20 Anonymous? Why should we seal everything so that the
21 public has no right to see what's going on?
22 MR. CANE: Well, there is a continuum. It's

23 not an absolute.
24 THE COURT: Correct.
25 MR. CANE: As I'm sure the Court is aware.

11
Proceedings
1 Ms. Buhl is aware that the first amendment isn't an
2 absolute. She was convicted of criminal charges
3 already.
4 THE COURT: You know what, counsel --
5 Sit down, counsel.
6 We are not going there. We're not talking

7 about Ms. Buhl's prior to conviction. Let's just talk
8 about what's going on.
9 MR. CANE: I think it's relevant, because it

10 shows -- you're talking about newsworthiness. There's
11 no newsworthiness, your Honor. I think there's
12 substantial reason to believe that Ms. Buhl is

13 publishing this for a purpose very different from the
14 public's right to know. It appears to me that she's
15 shilling by linking, for example, to counsel's website;

16 flattering them in her coverage; taking sides in this
17 case. It's not on the side of right. I think she may
18 be on the side of short sellers, for example, and I
19 think discovery will be very interesting on exactly that

20 her motivation was in publishing these stories, these
21 several stories that are damaging to my client.
22 So on that continuum, your Honor, I think that

23 while the public has a right to know, the cases are
24 pretty clear that your Honor should weigh, on the
25 continuum, where the public's rights to know fits with

12
Proceedings
1 my client's right to maintain the privacy of his
2 confidential information, which he never would have
3 disclosed, but for assurances by signatures on a

4 contract saying it would be kept confidential. So he
5 has rights as well as the public, and does the public
6 really have a compelling interest in my client's divorce

7 financial disclosures? I don't think so. This isn't
8 the pentagon papers, this is a guy trying to make a
9 living.
10 THE COURT: Your adversaries have raised a
11 concern, reading the amicus briefs, that basically you
12 are seeking to have Ms. Buhl disclose her source with

13 regards to the information that she relied upon in
14 publishing her article, and that flies in the face of
15 the constitution, the shield law, and everything that

16 protects journalists. How do you answer that?
17 MR. CANE: Ms. Buhl will have an opportunity
18 to invoke the shield law if and when these questions are
19 asked of her. I think it's a very separate question

20 from the one we are here on today, which is whether or
21 not we should seal the record. The shield law says what
22 it says, and she will have that defense if I do ask her

23 for the source of her information, but if it turns out,
24 in the course of discovery, that we unveil that she's
25 not working as a journalist, but working at the behest

13
Proceedings
1 of, on the salary, on the payroll of someone, then she's
2 not entitled to the shield law protections.
3 And they are not automatic. Simply because

4 you have a blog doesn't mean that you entitled to the
5 shield law protections, your Honor. I think that's a
6 pretty fair statement of the law, and we are entitled to

7 investigate whether or not she is entitled to the
8 protections that this state affords journalists.
9 THE COURT: All right. We'll come back to

10 you.
11 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Counsel?

13 MR. BAILEN: Yes, your Honor. Mark Bailen on
14 behalf of the reporter, Teri Buhl, and I would just like
15 to pick up, first, on this last point, the fact that

16 counsel said we are not here today on the issue of the
17 disclosure of her sources. Well, your Honor, we cross
18 moved to dismiss his petition, and we noticed it for the
19 prior date of the hearing, which was postponed until

20 today, so we are here to move to dismiss the petition on
21 the grounds that the discovery should not be had, and
22 there are essentially two reasons for that.

23 One is that the petitioner does not qualify
24 for purposes of the pre-action disclosure requirements,
25 and that is that he has a viable cause of action, and a

14
Proceedings
1 meritorious cause of action, and that the information is
2 material and necessary to the actionable wrong. He can
3 meet neither of those grounds, and this proceeding,

4 these types of proceedings, are not meant to be just
5 open-ended fishing expeditions.
6 Then secondly, and more importantly, the

7 discovery from my client that he seeks is just that. It
8 is the disclosure of a confidential source, and she is
9 protected under the absolute privilege of the New York

10 Shield Law, and the New York Constitution, Article 1
11 Section 8, where the New York Courts, for decades,
12 actually over 100 years, have provided this protection

13 to reporters, and most recently the in Court of Appeals
14 decision in Holmes v. Winter, where the Court pointed
15 out that this is one of the most important principles

16 there is.
17 As the Court says, "There is no principle more
18 fundamental or well-established than the right of a
19 reporter to refuse to divulge a confidential source,"

20 and that was the Holmes v. Winter case in 2013, and the
21 Court's continually have provided not only the absolute
22 protection, but also a qualified privilege. That's very

23 much, in my view, teed up for today, and the Court
24 should deny the -- or it should dismiss the petition.
25 On the sealing issue, you know, if the Court

15
Proceedings
1 would like to hear more argument, I think the Amici
2 presented very palpable arguments on that. We have
3 Mr. Schulz and Mr. Robert Bailen who combined have,

4 perhaps, more than 60 or 70 years of experience
5 litigating these very issues.
6 THE COURT: They are not that old.

7 MR. BALIN: Thank you, your Honor.
8 MR. BAILEN: Combined. I say combined. And
9 they are the foremost leaders in New York state on these

10 issues, and I think the relief that the plaintiff, or
11 the petitioner, here is seeking is extraordinary. I
12 mean frankly, I've never seen, and in conferring with

13 counsel for the amici, we have never seen a situation
14 where there's been an Anonymous v. Anonymous caption and
15 where nothing can be disclosed. To the extent that

16 there's some private, personal information such as
17 mental health information, or information about the
18 children, that could be understandably sealed, but with
19 respect to information about his business that directly

20 is related to the federal civil fraud suit, where there
21 are representations in the divorce proceeding regarding
22 his business's interest, and also representations that

23 were made in the company, that is not the type of
24 information that would be sealed.
25 So for those reasons, I think that if the

16
Proceedings
1 Court has any questions about the sealing, that we
2 should hear from amici as well, but a more important
3 issue for us and for my client is making sure that she

4 is not going to be forced to disclose a confidential
5 source, and there are two main reasons here. Your
6 Honor, you pointed out one of them before, which is this

7 information was publicly filed in March for two days.
8 Anyone in the world could have accessed that
9 information. Anyone in the world could have downloaded

10 that information from the PACER system, and then anyone
11 in the world could have provided it to Ms. Buhl.
12 However, there's a fundamental issue here that

13 we need to confront, which is there is no confidential
14 information that was disclosed to Ms. Buhl. She
15 believed, at the time, that when she received an email,

16 that the attachment to the email was a sealed document.
17 However, upon further reflection, it turns out that that
18 document was actually a later filing in the federal
19 court case that related to the sealed information and

20 discussed the sealed information. It was in connection
21 with the sanctions motion that was filed against the
22 plaintiff's counsel, and in their response, the

23 plaintiff's counsel explained why they attached the
24 sealed information that they didn't know at the time was
25 sealed, but the information that was confidential from

17
Proceedings
1 the divorce proceeding, why they attached that to the
2 prior filing. It was a motion, or an opposition, to a
3 motion to dismiss.
4 THE COURT: That's the Exhibit K.
5 MR. BAILEN: Exhibit K. The Sloan letter.
6 The Exhibit K. And they explained why they did that in

7 the sanctions, their opposition to the sanctions
8 motions, and they characterize and they describe the
9 evidence. They don't quote the actual evidence itself,

10 but they do describe it, and it was that brief that
11 Ms. Buhl relied upon when she was writing her article in
12 September, 2019 [sic], and she was forwarded that brief

13 by an anonymous source. However, if you look -- and if
14 your Honor would like, I prepared a copy of the brief.
15 THE COURT: That's okay, counsel.

16 MR. BAILEN: The sanctions motion.
17 THE COURT: That's all right.
18 MR. BAILEN: Because I highlighted the
19 portions in the brief, and then you can cross reference

20 them to the article. There is no confidential sealed
21 information that was written, that is written in her
22 article. She did not disclose any confidential or

23 sealed information. It can all be tied to that brief,
24 or it could be tied to the other information that was
25 already publicly available in the case, including in the

18
Proceedings
1 complaint and the other pleadings.
2 Ms. Buhl is a very experienced financial and
3 fraud investigative reporter. She has written for

4 numerous publications including New York Magazine and
5 Forbes and others; she has been highlighted in a
6 documentary film on her investigations; she's been --

7 her research has lead to criminal investigations of
8 numerous entities, and so she is very attuned to
9 researching and studying the record in these cases. She

10 was paying attention to the docket in the federal case,
11 and when she saw that the motion to dismiss was denied,
12 in part, in a securities litigation, it's very unusual

13 that a plaintiff can meet that bar in federal securities
14 that have to be -- you know, the amendments of the
15 1990's that really restricted it. So when she saw that,

16 she thought, This is a case that deserves more
17 attention. There's something here. There's something
18 there there. She began to study it more carefully, and
19 that's when she wrote an article over the summer, and

20 then when she got this email from a source sending her
21 the brief, she realized there was more to it with
22 respect to this, what they called the Rockmore note, and

23 again, all of that is public.
24 So there are two things here, Judge, that
25 there's no reason for this discovery, against Ms. Buhl,

19
Proceedings
1 at least, which is number one, anyone could have sent
2 her the information. It was not subject to any sealing
3 order. It was not subject to any restrictions, because

4 it was publicly available. And then, number two, if you
5 look at her article and look at what was published, she
6 did not disclose any confidential or sealed information.

7 So for those reasons alone, this case should
8 be dismissed. Then, if you want to wade into the
9 absolute privilege and the --

10 THE COURT: That's okay. We don't need to.
11 MR. BAILEN: Okay.
12 THE COURT: But just for the sake of the

13 record --
14 MR. BAILEN: Yes.
15 THE COURT: -- the Court has seen no evidence

16 that your client is not a journalist, as defined under
17 the statutes and under the caselaw, so the Court, even
18 though counsel has brought it up, he wasn't sure whether
19 she's a shiller on behalf of someone else, the Court has

20 not seen any evidence to show that your client is not a
21 journalist, and for the purpose of the Court, in reading
22 this, the Court understands that your client is a

23 journalist, is a newsperson, under the law.
24 MR. BAILEN: Absolutely, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

20
Proceedings
1 MR. BAILEN: There is no evidence whatsoever
2 to say this she's not a journalist. She does exactly
3 what a journalist does, and should be accorded that

4 protection.
5 THE COURT: Thank you.
6 MR. BAILEN: Thank you.

7 THE COURT: Counsel?
8 MR. MALONEY: Good afternoon, your Honor.
9 Again, Michael Maloney for the Binn and CKR respondents.

10 I would like to pick up a little bit where
11 counsel for Ms. Buhl left off. Your Honor, what
12 happened in the federal case is subject to the

13 provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26. The
14 federal rules don't apply in this court. They have
15 noting to do with the issues before your Honor. The

16 portions of materials filed in that court proceeding
17 that were sealed were sealed on the agreement between
18 counsel for the Binns and counsel for petitioner,
19 amongst the other defendants in that case. The memo of

20 law that Ms. Buhl ultimately received, and upon which
21 she made the inferences leading to her article was not
22 sealed, and it was not sealed based on the agreement

23 between counsel for the Binns and petitioner. There's
24 nothing confidential.
25 There's nothing that needs to be sealed or

21
Proceedings
1 protected from the public in that document upon which
2 she relied. I think that's extremely important for the
3 underlying request that petitioner makes here, and in my

4 mind it demonstrates that there's no basis for the
5 request, and no need for pre-action discovery.
6 I also want to go back and point out some of

7 the factual inconsistencies between what counsel for
8 petitioner argued here today and what is evident from
9 the record. We have spoken a couple times about the

10 Sloan letter. This is the letter that attaches
11 information concerning the so-called Rockmore note, and
12 in which counsel for petitioner made certain

13 representations about that note, and the ownership of
14 that note. On it's face, nothing about this letter or
15 its attachments suggestion that its confidential in any

16 way. Counsel for petitioner argued here today that the
17 letter was filed in connection a domestic relations
18 matter. That's not true, your Honor. The letter itself
19 is dated January 9th, 2017, and in the body of letter it

20 states that the matrimonial proceeding was settled as of
21 April 23rd, 2016, almost a year before. This was not
22 filed in connection with a matrimonial proceeding. This

23 is communications between two now-divorced parties about
24 potential claims that they are trying to resolve out of
25 court.
22
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Just for the sake of the record,
2 counsel, your clients were not subject to the
3 confidentiality agreement between the petitioner and his

4 ex-wife. You are not involved in that; right?
5 MR. MALONEY: You must be reading my mind.
6 That's my next point.

7 THE COURT: My children say that.
8 MR. MALONEY: Well, I don't want to touch on a
9 difficult topic.
10 THE COURT: Go ahead.
11 MR. MALONEY: But you're correct. Neither my
12 clients nor my law firm were parties to the

13 confidentiality agreement. In fact, the confidentiality
14 agreement was signed in 2015. The only parties thereto
15 were petitioner and his ex-wife. Nothing in the

16 confidentiality agreement itself references the domestic
17 relations law. It's merely an agreement between two
18 parties as to confidentiality of certain documents to be
19 exchanged between them, and I think this goes to a much

20 more fundamental issue on this proceeding before you,
21 your Honor. Nowhere in the verified petition does
22 petitioner allege that my firm, or my clients, had any

23 prior knowledge about the existence of the
24 confidentiality agreement. We cannot breach, or even
25 tortiously interfere with an agreement about which we

23
Proceedings
1 had no prior knowledge. Ms. Aufrichtig never notified
2 any one of us about the existence of a confidentiality
3 agreement. There's simply no basis to believe that we

4 had any prior knowledge about it. We are certainly not
5 parties to it.
6 I want to touch a little bit on something that

7 your Honor pointed out earlier here today, and that is
8 the burden here; who has the burden to show that these
9 records should be sealed from the public eye. I agree

10 with the point that you made earlier, your Honor, that
11 it is petitioner who bears that burden. It's not the
12 public, or these parties, the respondents, that need to

13 show why the public should have a right to understand
14 what's going on in connection with the Rockmore note and
15 its ownership. It is petitioner who should show,

16 really, why the public should not have knowledge about
17 the ownership of a secured loan about which a publicly
18 traded company owes a substantial amount of money, and
19 through which petitioner and his business partner,

20 Richard Abbe, can assert excessive control over a
21 publicly traded company.
22 Members of the public may or may not be

23 considering the purchase and sale of the stock in
24 XpresSpa as we stand here today talking about petition,
25 and without the availability of the information

24
Proceedings
1 contained in the Sloan letter they will be missing out
2 on valuable information that could affect their
3 decisions. That's a matter of great public interest.

4 There are innocent members of the public that could lose
5 a lot of money by investing in this company out the
6 benefit of this knowledge.

7 From our point of the view, the interest of
8 the public weighs so far strongly in favor of disclosure
9 here, that the record should be unsealed, including

10 Exhibit K, the Sloan letter, and for the reasons that I
11 mentioned in our papers, the petition should be
12 dismissed.
14 Counsel for the petitioner, you have an
15 opportunity to rebut what your adversaries have said.

16 MR. CANE: Thank you very much, your Honor.
17 Couple of points.
18 The confidentiality agreement didn't require,
19 as many of them do, I concede, that there be anything on

20 the face of the document that says it's confidential,
21 that defined anything having to do with my client or
22 Rockmore, or his other enumerated business interests

23 here were automatically deemed confidential.
24 The confidentiality agreement, as I said in
25 the papers, not to be redundant, but it binds anybody

25
Proceedings
1 who is engaged to represent either party in connection
2 with the divorce proceedings. I don't think there's any
3 question that this request for the document that ended

4 up with the Sloan letter, in response -- the Sloan
5 letter was produced in response to a request for
6 information in connection with the divorce proceedings.

7 If I'm an attorney and I'm representing a party in a
8 federal case over fraud, and one of the defendants
9 ex-wives sends me an email containing a document from

10 her ex-husband's financial disclosure, I think that's
11 reasonable notice to investigate whether or not it's
12 proper for me to put that in the public record, as

13 least, especially after counsel has conceded two
14 telephone conversations with Ms. Aufrichtig before
15 putting it in the public record. They could have simply

16 said, How did you get this document, and is there any --
17 do you have any obligations in terms of confidentiality,
18 before we are going put this in the public record? So I
19 think they were on notice, despite counsel's protest to

20 the contrary.
21 Again, why was there a six-month gap between
22 the disclosure of the information and Ms. Buhl

23 publishing that? And I appreciate your Honor's finding
24 on the record that Ms. Buhl is a reporter for the
25 purpose of the shield law. I do think, however, my

26
Proceedings
1 client is entitled to explore that in discovery.
2 Does your Honor want to hear argument on the
3 underlying application for pre-action discovery?

4 THE COURT: No. I've read your papers; your
5 briefs; the amicus briefs.
6 Just one thing, I believe that counsel was

7 saying, what about the two phone calls?
8 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, I need to correct
9 this statement. This is incorrect. What we actually

10 said what we actually said in the Exhibit D to the
11 Felicello affirmation is that we had two phone calls
12 with Ms. Buhl after the decision denying the motion to

13 dismiss, and I wrote this letter. I signed it as an
14 officer of the Court. You can read it yourself. We did
15 not disclose, to Ms. Buhl, information that had, on

16 consent, been sealed in the federal case. I have never
17 spoken to Ms. Aufrichtig. Ms. Felicello, who is here
18 today, can tell the Court herself, she has never spoken
19 to Ms. Aufrichtig.
20 MS. FELICELLO: I have never spoken to
21 Ms. Aufrichtig, your Honor.
22 MR. MALONEY: I think, your Honor, these

23 factual inconsistencies lend themselves to a denial of
24 the request to seal and a dismissal of this petition.
25 MR. BOLTON: Your Honor --

27
Proceedings
1 THE COURT: You are next. You're from
2 McPherson?
3 MR. BOLTON: No.

4 THE COURT: Ms. Aufrichtig.
5 MR. BOLTON: Yes. Your Honor, so it has been
6 stated by the plaintiff, as if it's a fact, that this

7 letter, this Sloan letter that's been referred to
8 contains confidential information, and was subject to
9 the confidentiality agreement. That has not been shown.

10 The confidentiality agreement ended when the parties'
11 divorce ended. This letter was sent after judgment had
12 been entered. There's nothing to indicate on the letter

13 by the attorneys, who are a very well-known matrimonial
14 firm, that says, This should be considered confidential,
15 This is part of the matrimonial. This is was a

16 post-judgment issue that was raised between counsel for
17 the parties and was responded to, so for Ms. Aufrichtig,
18 I want to make sure it's clear, we don't concede in any
19 way that there was a violation of the confidentiality

20 agreement. We don't concede that the document was
21 confidential. The only issue that I'm aware of that
22 concerns my client on today is whether this file should

23 be sealed. She takes no position on that. She doesn't
24 consent to it. She just she says whatever the Court
25 thinks is appropriate, she will abide by, but we do not

28
Proceedings
1 concede that there was any violation of the agreement.
2 THE COURT: So counsel, am I clear that we
3 would not be here were it not for the fact that your
4 client sent this information to the respondents on their
5 side? Had she not sent anything to anybody, we probably
6 would not be here.

7 MR. BOLTON: It's possible. I don't know. I
8 haven't followed the Federal Court case, and I don't
9 know whether -- I believe the judge would have denied

10 their motion to dismiss anyway, but we can't read his
11 mind, obviously.
12 THE COURT: All right.

13 Finally, counsel for McPherson.
14 MS. SHENOY: Good afternoon, your Honor.
15 In term of the issue which we believe to be

16 before your Honor today, which is the issue of sealing
17 the record, or proceeding as Anonymous versus Anonymous,
18 we have to objection to that, your Honor, and we take no
19 position on it. We do not object to proceeding as

20 Anonymous versus Anonymous.
21 However, I just wanted to note, for the
22 record, as Mr. Cane said, we do take the position that

23 we were not properly served with the underlying
24 petition. We received the order to show cause to seal
25 the record and to proceed as Anonymous versus Anonymous,

29
Proceedings
1 but we don't believe that that would be considered
2 service of the underlying petition itself, and we would
3 just request an opportunity to respond. I actually have

4 answering papers prepared and ready to be served, but we
5 do take the position that we have not actually been
6 directed to serve an answer thus far, and so we would

7 request an opportunity to respond.
8 THE COURT: Counsel, finally.

10 I believe the order to show cause said that a
11 copy of this order to show cause and the papers on which
12 it's based will be sufficient service. Everybody else

13 was served with the same papers and responded. It might
14 have been easier, just as a matter of courtesy, once you
15 received them, to give me your answer, but I have no

16 problem with the position counsel has taken.
17 I just wanted to address what counsel for
18 Ms. Aufrichtig said. The confidentiality agreement,
19 again, just to belabor the point, because I think it

20 deserves it, anything that is -- any counsel who is
21 engaged, related to divorce, not in connection with an
22 active proceeding in the divorce, but for the divorce,

23 there never would have been this request for the
24 documents. That's the only reason that it was produced,
25 and we happen to know, because Aufrichtig has told us,

30
Proceedings
1 that all the documents that her prior counsel, Cohen
2 Clair -- who has chosen not to appear -- was transferred
3 to Ms. McPherson, so she had to have known at some

4 point -- she is an experienced divorce lawyer -- that
5 there is a confidentiality agreement in place.
6 Your Honor, I think the Court knows that

7 parties don't exchange financial information in divorce
8 cases without some assurance of confidentiality, and the
9 violations of this particular agreement are legion,

10 including, Ms. Aufrichtig was obligated to destroy
11 everything she had, and she didn't.
12 THE COURT: Finally, counsel.

13 MS. SHENOY: In terms of the underlying
14 petition for pre-action disclosure, your Honor, we would
15 take the position that the action should be dismissed

16 with respect to the McPherson firm. Our representation
17 of Ms. Aufrichtig was a one-month representation that
18 occurred six months after the divorce was completed. We
19 were never presented, as counsel said, with a

20 confidentiality agreement. We were never -- the Sloan
21 letter, as counsel has mentioned, does not speak to the
22 existence of a confidentiality agreement. We were never

23 presented with one; we never signed one; and we
24 certainly didn't disseminate any confidential
25 information.
31
Proceedings
1 Basically, our representation consisted of
2 sending a letter pursuing potential claims that our
3 client might have had, and we received the Sloan letter

4 in response. The letter was forwarded to our client,
5 and our client basically decided not to pursue the
6 action, and that was kind of the limit of our

7 involvement in this situation. We would take the
8 position that there is no basis for the pre-action
9 disclosure with respect to the McPherson Firm.

10 MR. CANE: If you want to hear argument, your
11 Honor, on that, I mean, that's -- right there, again, is
12 good reason that we need the disclosure. You can't take

13 counsel's word for it that this is what happened. We
14 have actually, now, testimony to the contrary. We know
15 practice from Ms. Aufrichtig that Ms. McPherson received

16 voluminous documents from Cohen Clair, and we should
17 know whether or not those documents are going to be put
18 in the public record one day. If Ms. McPherson is
19 taking the position, or her firm is taking the position

20 that they are not bound by confidentiality, and they
21 have files full of my client's confidential information,
22 we'll we need to know that, and we need to address that.

23 THE COURT: All right, Ladies and Gentlemen.
24 We are going take a brief recess. When I return, I will
25 rule on the motion. Thank you.

32
Proceedings
1 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
2 * * * * * *
3 THE COURT: You may be seated.

4 In the matter as noted before this Court as
5 Anonymous v. Anonymous, upon the foregoing documents, as
6 presented to the Court, the petition for pre-action

7 discovery and order to show cause seeking the sealing of
8 the record, and to proceed under the caption of
9 Anonymous v. Anonymous, is denied.

10 It has been held that a petition for
11 pre-action discovery may be granted only if the
12 petitioner demonstrates that they have a meritorious

13 cause of action, and the information sought is material
14 and necessary to an existing or actionable wrong.
15 Liberty Imports versus Bourguet, 271 A.D.2d 535.

16 Pre-action discovery may not be used by a party to
17 ascertain whether she has a cause of action, or to
18 discover whether or not a claim exists, or to explore
19 the feasibility of framing a complaint. Uddin versus

20 New York City Transit Authority, 27 A.D.3d 265. In the
21 case at bar, petitioner claims that he has meritorious
22 causes of action for breach of contract, tortuous

23 interference with contract, injunctive relief, and
24 others.
25 In determining whether a petitioner as

33
Proceedings
1 demonstrated a prima facie case, the evidence presented
2 must be considered in the light most favorable to the
3 petitioner. Holtzman versus Manhattan and Bronx Surface

4 Transit, 217 A.D.2d 346. However, in viewing such
5 evidence in the favorable light, the Court finds that
6 petitioner has failed to establish the element necessary

7 to obtain pre-action discovery arising out of the claims
8 raised herein. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to
9 pre-action discovery pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) to

10 determine who induced the breach of the stipulated
11 confidentiality agreement in his divorce proceeding.
12 Petitioner also requests an injunction to

13 preserve information, quote-unquote. He claims that
14 each of the respondents has a, "Obvious incentive to
15 destroy or secrete evidence relating to the disclosure

16 of a confidential and sensitive business document,"
17 which was produced after the divorce proceeding ended,
18 and in the midst of a federal proceeding, which is still
19 pending.
20 These claims lack merit. It appears that when
21 one peels away the layers of petitioner's claims, he is
22 really seeking to ascertain the identity of the source

23 of Ms. Buhl's information, which lead her to publish an
24 article regarding the federal action, in which
25 petitioner is a party. He asserts that Ms. Buhl knew of

34
Proceedings
1 the confidentiality agreement, however, the record
2 reveals that Ms. Buhl was unaware of the confidentiality
3 agreement between petitioner and his ex-wife; she never

4 induced a breach of the agreement; she did not know it
5 existed; and she never received any sealed document
6 relating to petitioner, or any document covered by a

7 confidentiality agreement between petitioner and his
8 ex-wife.
9 Moreover, given New York's long tradition of

10 protecting freedom of the press, and recognizing the
11 critical role that the press plays in our democratic
12 society, Ms. Buhl, as professional journalist, is

13 protected by the shield law, which was enacted to
14 provide the highest level of protection in the nation
15 for those which gather and report the news, and to

16 promote the free flow of newsworthy information to the
17 public. Immuno Ag versus Moore-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.S.2d
18 25; Murray Energy Corp. versus Reorg Research Inc., 152
19 A.D.3d 445.
20 Petitioner also failed to establish a cause of
21 action against the CKR Law or Binn parties. The Court
22 denies petitioner's request for pre-action disclosure

23 against these parties, as there is no nexus between them
24 and the conduct about which petitioner complains. They
25 are not mentioned in the confidentiality agreement, and

35
Proceedings
1 there was no contract between them and petitioner.
2 Further, the petition alleges a breach of contract
3 between the petitioner and his ex-wife in connection

4 with their divorce action. These parties were not
5 involved in that proceeding.
6 The Court also denies petitioner's request for

7 a preliminary injunction. The purpose of a preliminary
8 injunction is to maintain the status quo until there can
9 be a full hearing on the merits. Putter v. City of New

10 York, 277 A.D.3d 250.
11 Here the, Binn and CKR Law parties have
12 already filed a document under seal in the federal

13 action. There is no need to issue an injunction by this
14 Court, as one is not necessary. Petitioner has also not
15 shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable

16 injury in the absence of such an injunction, and a
17 balance of the equities in his favor. As the
18 respondents are not parties to the agreement, he may not
19 succeed in this request.

20 Further, there is no showing that he will
21 suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of the
22 equities fall in his favor. These claims are pled not

23 against the proper parties.
24 Finally, petitioner has failed to meet the
25 substantial burden demonstrating that compelling

36
Proceedings
1 circumstances exist to justify the total sealing of the
2 record at bar. There is a broad constitutional
3 presumption that the public and press are entitled to

4 access court proceedings. The right of access to
5 proceedings, as well as to court records, is firmly
6 grounded in common law principals, and the existence of

7 the correlating common law right to inspect and copy
8 judicial records, is beyond dispute. Mosallem versus
9 Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345.

10 The party seeking to seal records has the
11 burden of demonstrating compelling circumstances to
12 justify restricting public access. A finding of good

13 cause presupposes that the public access to the
14 documents at issue will likely result in harm to a
15 compelling interest of the movant. Mancheski versus

16 Global Group Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499. Neither
17 the potential for embarrassment or damage to reputation,
18 nor the general desire for privity, constitutes good
19 cause to seal records. Mosallem at 76 A.D.3d 349. The

20 courts have been cautioned that the discretion to limit
21 the public nature of judicial proceeding by the use of
22 Anonymous captions should be used sparingly, and then

23 only when unusual circumstances necessitate it.
24 Anonymous v. Anonymous, 27 A.D.3d 356.
25 Petitioner's financial interest in the

37
Proceedings
1 document already sealed in the federal court is not a
2 compelling circumstances warranting the drastic relief
3 of proceeding under Anonymous caption. Accordingly it

4 is hereby adjudged that the order to show cause to seal
5 the record and to proceed under the caption of Anonymous
6 is denied, as petitioner has not met his burden to

7 support such drastic relief, and it is further adjudged
8 that the cross motion to unseal Exhibit K is moot, as
9 the petition is dismissed, and the Court has denied the

10 order to show cause to seal the record.
11 It is further adjudged that the cross motion
12 to dismiss the petition as to Teri Buhl and CKR Law,

13 LLP, and the Binn defendants, is granted, and the
14 petition is dismissed without costs and disbursements.
15 Any requested relief not expressly addressed

16 by the Court has nonetheless been considered, and it is
17 hereby denied.
18 This constitutes the decision and order of the
19 Court.
20 Thank you very much, and have a good
21 afternoon.
22 MS. FELICELLO: Thank you, your Honor.

24 MR. BAILEN: Thank you.
25 MR. MALONEY: Thank you, your Honor.

38
1 MR. BAILEN: Your Honor, one point of
2 clarification. So everything that has been filed in the
3 record now, originally the clerk was ordered to keep

4 under seal, is now unsealed?
5 THE COURT: It's unsealed. It's gone.
6 THE COURT ATTORNEY: There will be a separate

7 unsealing order directing the clerk to unseal the file.
8 THE COURT: They have to be two separate
9 orders. We can't put them both in one order, so there

10 will be a separate order with regards to that.
11 MR. BAILEN: Great. Thank you very much, your
12 Honor.
13 MR. CANE: Thank you.
15 * * * * * *
16 Certified to be a true and accurate
17 transcription of the above-entitled matter.
18
19
20
________________________________
21 Lisa A. Casey
Senior Court Reporter
22
23
24
25
Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019
13:8 apply (1) 29:18,25;30:10,17; 37:13

[ afternoon (7) 20:14 31:15 Binns (3)
3:1,3;4:13;8:1; appreciate (2) Authority (1) 3:9;20:18,23
[sic] (1) 20:8;28:14;37:21 8:5;25:23 32:20 bit (3)
17:12 Ag (1) appropriate (1) automatic (1) 5:16;20:10;23:6
34:17 27:25 13:3 blog (1)
A again (5) April (1) automatically (1) 13:4
18:23;20:9;25:21; 21:21 24:23 blogger (1)
Abbe (1) 29:19;31:11 argue (1) availability (1) 10:8
23:20 against (5) 7:2 23:25 body (1)
abide (1) 16:21;18:25;34:21, argued (3) available (2) 21:19
27:25 23;35:23 8:19;21:8,16 17:25;19:4 BOLTON (6)
absence (1) agree (1) argues (1) aware (3) 3:13,13;26:25;
35:16 23:9 33:8 10:25;11:1;27:21 27:3,5;28:7
absolute (5) agreement (31) argument (4) away (1) both (1)
10:23;11:2;14:9, 5:5;7:9;9:2;20:17, 9:16;15:1;26:2; 33:21 4:23
21;19:9 22;22:3,13,14,16,17, 31:10 bound (1)
Absolutely (1) 24,25;23:3;24:18,24; arguments (1) B 31:20
19:24 27:9,10,20;28:1; 15:2 Bourguet (1)
Access (6) 29:18;30:5,9,20,22; arising (1) back (3) 32:15
4:4;10:4;36:4,4,12, 33:11;34:1,3,4,7,25; 33:7 5:16;13:9;21:6 breach (5)
13 35:18 around (1) BAILEN (15) 22:24;32:22;33:10;
accessed (1) ahead (2) 10:2 3:5,5;13:13,13; 34:4;35:2
16:8 9:3;22:10 article (9) 15:3,8;17:5,16,18; brief (8)
accorded (1) allege (1) 12:14;14:10;17:11, 19:11,14,24;20:1,6; 5:7;17:10,12,14,19,
20:3 22:22 20,22;18:19;19:5; 37:24 23;18:21;31:24
Accordingly (1) alleges (1) 20:21;33:24 balance (2) briefs (3)
37:3 35:2 ascertain (2) 35:17,21 12:11;26:5,5
action (11) almost (1) 32:17;33:22 BALIN (3) bright (1)
13:25;14:1;30:15; 21:21 assert (1) 3:25,25;15:7 10:4
31:6;32:13,17,22; alone (1) 23:20 bar (3) broad (1)
33:24;34:21;35:4,13 19:7 asserts (1) 18:13;32:21;36:2 36:2
actionable (2) amendment (2) 33:25 based (2) Bronx (1)
14:2;32:14 4:12;11:1 assume (1) 20:22;29:12 33:3
active (1) amendments (1) 7:25 Basically (4) brought (1)
29:22 18:14 assuming (1) 6:1;12:11;31:1,5 19:18
actual (1) Amici (5) 10:3 basis (3) Buhl (28)
17:9 4:1,5;15:1,13;16:2 assumption (1) 21:4;23:3;31:8 3:6,6;7:17,20,23;
actually (7) amicus (2) 9:2 bears (1) 8:14,19;9:9;11:1,12;
14:12;16:18;26:9, 12:11;26:5 assurance (1) 23:11 12:12,17;13:14;
10;29:3,5;31:14 amongst (1) 30:8 became (1) 16:11,14;17:11;18:2,
AD2d (2) 20:19 assurances (1) 9:13 25;20:11,20;25:22,
32:15;33:4 amount (1) 12:3 began (1) 24;26:12,15;33:25;
AD3d (7) 23:18 attached (2) 18:18 34:2,12;37:12
32:20;34:19;35:10; Anonymous (21) 16:23;17:1 behalf (4) Buhl's (2)
36:9,16,19,24 7:5,6;10:20;15:14, attaches (1) 3:9;4:5;13:14; 11:7;33:23
address (2) 14;17:13;28:17,17, 21:10 19:19 burden (7)
29:17;31:22 20,20,25,25;32:5,5,9, attachment (1) behest (1) 10:5;23:8,8,11;
addressed (1) 9;36:22,24,24;37:3,5 16:16 12:25 35:25;36:11;37:6
37:15 Appeals (1) attachments (1) belabor (1) business (4)
adjudged (3) 14:13 21:15 29:19 15:19;23:19;24:22;
37:4,7,11 appear (2) attention (2) benefit (1) 33:16
administrative (1) 7:5;30:2 18:10,17 24:6 business's (1)
4:15 appearance (1) attorney (1) Berenson (1) 15:22
adversaries (2) 4:7 25:7 36:9
12:10;24:15 appearances (1) attorneys (1) Bernstein's (3) C
advice (1) 3:2 27:13 6:4,11,23
10:9 appears (2) attuned (1) beyond (1) called (1)
affect (1) 11:14;33:20 18:8 36:8 18:22
24:2 Appellate (3) Aufrichtig (18) binds (1) calls (2)
affirmation (1) 9:23;10:7,11 3:14;4:22,22;7:21, 24:25 26:7,11
26:11 application (2) 24;8:11;23:1;25:14; Binn (4) can (10)
affords (1) 4:24;26:3 26:17,19,21;27:4,17; 20:9;34:21;35:11; 7:3;14:2;15:15;
Min-U-Script® (1) [sic] - can

Anonymous v.
17:19,23;18:13; CKR (7) 34:24 11:2 34:11

23:20;26:14,18;35:8 3:9;7:18,19;20:9; conferring (1) conviction (1) cross (4)
CANE (27) 34:21;35:11;37:12 15:12 11:7 13:17;17:19;37:8,
3:3,4,18;4:11;5:2, claim (1) confidential (22) copy (3) 11
11;6:5,10,13,15,18, 32:18 7:17;8:11;12:2,4; 17:14;29:11;36:7
22;7:7,21,24;8:4;9:4; claims (8) 14:8,19;16:4,13,25; Corp (1) D
10:22,25;11:9;12:17; 21:24;31:2;32:21; 17:20,22;19:6;20:24; 34:18
13:11;24:16;28:22; 33:7,13,20,21;35:22 21:15;24:20,23;27:8, correlating (1) damage (1)
29:9;31:10;37:23 Clair (4) 14,21;30:24;31:21; 36:7 36:17
Capital (1) 3:19;4:16;30:2; 33:16 costs (1) damaging (1)
36:16 31:16 confidentiality (27) 37:14 11:21
caption (4) clear (3) 5:5;7:9;9:2;22:3, counsel (41) date (1)
15:14;32:8;37:3,5 11:24;27:18;28:2 13,13,16,18,24;23:2; 3:24;4:9,21,25; 13:19
captions (1) client (16) 24:18,24;25:17;27:9, 7:18;8:12,12,16; dated (2)
36:22 5:3;7:8;10:19; 10,19;29:18;30:5,8, 10:1;11:4,5;13:12, 6:13;21:19
carefully (1) 11:21;14:7;16:3; 20,22;31:20;33:11; 16;15:13;16:22,23; David (2)
18:18 19:16,20,22;24:21; 34:1,2,7,25 17:15;19:18;20:7,11, 3:13;4:3
case (21) 26:1;27:22;28:4; confront (1) 18,18,23;21:7,12,16; Davis (1)
4:14;5:17,18;7:10, 31:3,4,5 16:13 22:2;24:14;25:13; 4:1
13;9:5;10:7;11:17; clients (3) connection (8) 26:6;27:16;28:2,13; day (1)
14:20;16:19;17:25; 22:2,12,22 16:20;21:17,22; 29:8,16,17,20;30:1, 31:18
18:10,16;19:7;20:12, client's (5) 23:14;25:1,6;29:21; 12,19,21 days (3)
19;25:8;26:16;28:8; 5:19;9:20;12:1,6; 35:3 counsel's (3) 8:17;9:7;16:7
32:21;33:1 31:21 consent (3) 11:15;25:19;31:13 decades (1)
caselaw (1) Clinic (1) 5:18;26:16;27:24 couple (2) 14:11
19:17 4:5 considered (4) 21:9;24:17 decided (1)
cases (5) Cohen (4) 27:14;29:1;33:2; course (2) 31:5
9:22;10:2;11:23; 3:19;4:16;30:1; 37:16 7:10;12:24 decision (4)
18:9;30:8 31:16 considering (1) COURT (88) 8:22;14:14;26:12;
cause (17) combined (3) 23:23 3:1,11,17,21;4:6, 37:18
5:2;6:2,20,24; 15:3,8,8 consisted (1) 25;5:6,9,12,25;6:9, decisions (1)
13:25;14:1;28:24; coming (2) 31:1 12,14,17,20;7:1,20, 24:3
29:10,11;32:7,13,17; 3:23;5:13 constitutes (2) 23,25;8:7,16,21,24; deemed (1)
34:20;36:13,19;37:4, Committee (1) 36:18;37:18 9:22;10:1,4,12,24,25; 24:23
10 4:1 constitution (2) 11:4;12:10;13:9,12; Deepti (1)
causes (1) common (2) 12:15;14:10 14:13,14,17,23,25; 3:15
32:22 36:6,7 constitutional (1) 15:6;16:1,19;17:4,15, defendants (3)
cautioned (1) communications (1) 36:2 17;19:10,12,15,15, 20:19;25:8;37:13
36:20 21:23 contained (1) 17,19,21,22,25;20:5, defense (1)
certain (3) company (5) 24:1 7,14,16;21:25;22:1,7, 12:22
5:16;21:12;22:18 10:8;15:23;23:18, containing (1) 10;24:13;26:4,14,18; defined (2)
certainly (2) 21;24:5 25:9 27:1,4,24;28:2,8,12; 19:16;24:21
23:4;30:24 compelling (5) contains (1) 29:8;30:6,12;31:23; democratic (1)
certainty (1) 12:6;35:25;36:11, 27:8 32:3,4,6;33:5;34:21; 34:11
9:11 15;37:2 contents (1) 35:6,14;36:4,5;37:1, demonstrated (1)
challenge (2) complains (1) 9:15 9,16,19 33:1
5:19,21 34:24 continually (1) courtesy (1) demonstrates (2)
characterize (1) complaint (2) 14:21 29:14 21:4;32:12
17:8 18:1;32:19 continue (4) courtroom (1) demonstrating (2)
charges (1) completed (1) 5:20;6:12;7:4;8:3 4:13 35:25;36:11
11:2 30:18 continuum (3) Courts (2) denial (1)
children (2) concede (4) 10:22;11:22,25 14:11;36:20 26:23
15:18;22:7 24:19;27:18,20; contract (5) Court's (1) denied (6)
chosen (1) 28:1 12:4;32:22,23; 14:21 18:11;28:9;32:9;
30:2 conceded (1) 35:1,2 coverage (1) 37:6,9,17
circumstances (4) 25:13 contrary (4) 11:16 denies (2)
36:1,11,23;37:2 concern (1) 6:21,25;25:20; covered (1) 34:22;35:6
cited (1) 12:11 31:14 34:6 deny (1)
10:7 concerning (4) control (1) CPLR (1) 14:24
City (2) 6:4,11,22;21:11 23:20 33:9 denying (1)
32:20;35:9 concerns (1) conversations (1) criminal (2) 26:12
civil (2) 27:22 25:14 11:2;18:7 Department (2)
15:20;20:13 conduct (1) convicted (1) critical (1) 9:23;10:12
Min-U-Script® (2) CANE - Department

Anonymous v.
departments (1) 37:9,14 ended (4) existing (1) Felicello (5)

9:24 dispute (1) 25:3;27:10,11; 32:14 3:10;26:11,17,20;
describe (2) 36:8 33:17 exists (1) 37:22
17:8,10 disseminate (1) Energy (1) 32:18 file (4)
deserves (2) 30:24 34:18 expected (1) 3:19;7:4;8:20;
18:16;29:20 Division (3) engaged (2) 8:10 27:22
desire (1) 9:23;10:7,11 25:1;29:21 expeditions (1) filed (9)
36:18 divorce (22) enough (1) 14:5 4:15;5:7;7:12;16:7,
despite (1) 6:4,11,23;7:10;8:9; 7:2 experience (1) 21;20:16;21:17,22;
25:19 9:1,20;12:6;15:21; entered (1) 15:4 35:12
destroy (2) 17:1;25:2,6;27:11; 27:12 experienced (2) files (1)
30:10;33:15 29:21,22,22;30:4,7, entities (1) 18:2;30:4 31:21
determine (2) 18;33:11,17;35:4 18:8 explained (2) filing (2)
9:6;33:10 divulge (1) entitled (7) 16:23;17:6 16:18;17:2
determined (1) 14:19 13:2,4,6,7;26:1; explore (2) film (1)
6:7 docket (1) 33:8;36:3 26:1;32:18 18:6
determining (1) 18:10 entity (2) expressly (1) Finally (4)
32:25 document (19) 10:14,14 37:15 28:13;29:8;30:12;
different (1) 6:16;7:8,18;8:23, enumerated (1) extent (1) 35:24
11:13 25;9:13;16:16,18; 24:22 15:15 financial (7)
difficult (1) 21:1;24:20;25:3,9, equities (2) extraordinary (1) 9:20;10:9;12:7;
22:9 16;27:20;33:16;34:5, 35:17,22 15:11 18:2;25:10;30:7;
difficulties (1) 6;35:12;37:1 especially (4) extremely (1) 36:25
10:10 documentary (1) 10:14,15,16;25:13 21:2 finding (2)
directed (1) 18:6 essentially (1) ex-wife (5) 25:23;36:12
29:6 documents (15) 13:22 22:4,15;34:3,8; finds (1)
directly (1) 5:4,17;6:8,10;7:12; establish (2) 35:3 33:5
15:19 8:2,9;10:5;22:18; 33:6;34:20 ex-wives (1) finish (1)
disbursements (1) 29:24;30:1;31:16,17; even (3) 25:9 6:6
37:14 32:5;36:14 8:2;19:17;22:24 eye (1) Firm (12)
disclose (5) domestic (4) Everybody (1) 23:9 3:16,19;4:16,16,
12:12;16:4;17:22; 7:11,13;21:17; 29:12 17;8:24;22:12,22;
19:6;26:15 22:16 evidence (8) F 27:14;30:16;31:9,19
disclosed (5) down (1) 17:9,9;19:15,20; firmly (1)
9:18;10:11;12:3; 11:5 20:1;33:1,5,15 face (3) 36:5
15:15;16:14 downloaded (1) evident (1) 12:14;21:14;24:20 first (9)
disclosure (11) 16:9 21:8 facie (1) 4:12,14,19,20;7:8;
13:17,24;14:8; drastic (2) exactly (2) 33:1 9:23;10:12;11:1;
24:8;25:10,22;30:14; 37:2,7 11:19;20:2 fact (5) 13:15
31:9,12;33:15;34:22 during (1) example (2) 9:16;13:15;22:13; fishing (1)
disclosures (2) 9:1 11:15,18 27:6;28:3 14:5
9:20;12:7 except (2) factual (2) fits (1)
discover (1) E 6:3,22 21:7;26:23 11:25
32:18 exception (1) failed (3) flattering (1)
discovery (15) earlier (2) 6:18 33:6;34:20;35:24 11:16
4:24;9:5;11:19; 23:7,10 excessive (1) fair (1) flies (1)
12:24;13:21;14:7; easier (2) 23:20 13:6 12:14
18:25;21:5;26:1,3; 8:22;29:14 exchange (2) fall (1) flow (1)
32:7,11,16;33:7,9 either (2) 8:25;30:7 35:22 34:16
discretion (1) 4:16;25:1 exchanged (1) far (2) followed (1)
36:20 element (1) 22:19 24:8;29:6 28:8
discuss (1) 33:6 Exhibit (6) favor (3) Forbes (1)
7:3 else (3) 17:4,5,6;24:10; 24:8;35:17,22 18:5
discussed (1) 4:6;19:19;29:12 26:10;37:8 favorable (2) forced (1)
16:20 email (5) ex-husband's (1) 33:2,5 16:4
dismiss (8) 7:17;16:15,16; 25:10 feasibility (1) foregoing (1)
13:18,20;14:24; 18:20;25:9 exist (1) 32:19 32:5
17:3;18:11;26:13; embarrassment (1) 36:1 federal (17) foremost (1)
28:10;37:12 36:17 existed (1) 5:5,17;8:24;15:20; 15:9
dismissal (1) enacted (1) 34:5 16:18;18:10,13; forwarded (2)
26:24 34:13 existence (4) 20:12,13,14;25:8; 17:12;31:4
dismissed (5) enclosed (1) 22:23;23:2;30:22; 26:16;28:8;33:18,24; framing (1)
19:8;24:12;30:15; 7:17 36:6 35:12;37:1 32:19
Min-U-Script® (3) departments - framing

Anonymous v.
frankly (1) 6:15 Inc (1) 18:3 lack (1)

15:12 handed (1) 34:18 investing (1) 33:20
fraud (3) 6:16 incentive (1) 24:5 Ladies (1)
15:20;18:3;25:8 happen (2) 33:14 invoke (1) 31:23
free (1) 5:12;29:25 including (4) 12:18 lapse (4)
34:16 happened (3) 17:25;18:4;24:9; involved (2) 8:16,21,23;9:7
Freedom (3) 9:12;20:12;31:13 30:10 22:4;35:5 last (3)
4:2,4;34:10 happening (1) inconsistencies (2) involvement (1) 5:8;8:2;13:15
Friday (1) 5:10 21:7;26:23 31:7 later (1)
6:2 harm (2) incorrect (1) irreparable (2) 16:18
front (1) 35:21;36:14 26:9 35:15,21 Law (25)
5:23 health (1) indicate (2) irrespective (1) 3:9,19;4:16;7:11,
fulfill (1) 15:17 9:17;27:12 6:24 18,19;8:24;12:15,18,
7:9 hear (4) indicates (1) issue (12) 21;13:2,5,6;14:10;
full (2) 15:1;16:2;26:2; 9:11 5:4;13:16;14:25; 19:23;20:20;22:12,
31:21;35:9 31:10 induced (2) 16:3,12;22:20;27:16, 17;25:25;34:13,21;
fundamental (3) heard (2) 33:10;34:4 21;28:15,16;35:13; 35:11;36:6,7;37:12
14:18;16:12;22:20 4:19,20 inferences (1) 36:14 lawyer (1)
further (5) hearing (2) 20:21 issued (2) 30:4
16:17;35:2,20; 13:19;35:9 Information (40) 5:22;7:14 layers (1)
37:7,11 held (1) 4:4;10:11,13;12:2, issues (3) 33:21
32:10 13,23;14:1;15:16,17, 15:5,10;20:15 lead (2)
G hereby (2) 17,19,24;16:7,9,10, 18:7;33:23
37:4,17 14,19,20,24,25; J leaders (1)
gallery (1) herein (1) 17:21,23,24;19:2,6; 15:9
3:7 33:8 21:11;23:25;24:2; January (1) leading (1)
gap (3) herself (2) 25:6,22;26:15;27:8; 21:19 20:21
9:13,17;25:21 8:20;26:18 28:4;30:7,25;31:21; journalist (7) least (2)
gather (1) highest (1) 32:13;33:13,23; 12:25;19:16,21,23; 19:1;25:13
34:15 34:14 34:16 20:2,3;34:12 leaves (1)
gave (1) highlighted (2) injunction (5) journalists (2) 9:9
10:8 17:18;18:5 33:12;35:7,8,13,16 12:16;13:8 left (1)
general (2) Holmes (2) injunctive (1) Judge (14) 20:11
6:18;36:18 14:14,20 32:23 4:3;5:8,15,16,22; legion (2)
Gentlemen (1) Holtzman (1) injury (1) 6:2,7;7:2,14;8:12,14, 9:22;30:9
31:23 33:3 35:16 18;18:24;28:9 lend (1)
given (3) Honor (46) innocent (1) judgment (1) 26:23
8:19;10:17;34:9 3:3,8,13,18,25; 24:4 27:11 letter (20)
Global (1) 4:11;5:15;6:15;7:7; inspect (1) judicial (2) 17:5;21:10,10,14,
36:16 8:4;9:4;11:11,22,24; 36:7 36:8,21 17,18,19;24:1,10;
goes (1) 13:5,11,13,17;15:7; interest (11) justified (1) 25:4,5;26:13;27:7,7,
22:19 16:6;17:14;19:24; 8:6,8;9:19,25;10:6; 4:14 11,12;30:21;31:2,3,4
Good (13) 20:8,11,15;21:18; 12:6;15:22;24:3,7; justify (2) level (1)
3:1,3;4:11;5:2;6:2, 22:21;23:7,10;24:16; 36:15,25 36:1,12 34:14
20,24;20:8;28:14; 26:2,8,21,22,25;27:5; interesting (1) Liberty (1)
31:12;36:12,18; 28:14,16,18;29:9; 11:19 K 32:15
37:20 30:6,14;31:11;37:22, interests (2) lift (1)
granted (2) 23,25 8:7;24:22 kept (1) 6:3
32:11;37:13 Honor's (1) interfere (1) 12:4 light (5)
great (1) 25:23 22:25 kind (1) 10:4,16,18;33:2,5
24:3 interference (1) 31:6 likelihood (1)
grounded (1) I 32:23 knew (2) 35:15
36:6 internet (1) 8:25;33:25 likely (1)
grounds (2) identity (1) 9:14 knowledge (5) 36:14
13:21;14:3 33:22 interpretation (1) 22:23;23:1,4,16; limit (2)
Group (1) Immuno (1) 7:15 24:6 31:6;36:20
36:16 34:17 into (3) known (1) linking (1)
guy (1) important (3) 8:20;10:2;19:8 30:3 11:15
12:8 14:15;16:2;21:2 investigate (2) knows (1) litigating (1)
importantly (1) 13:7;25:11 30:6 15:5
H 14:6 investigations (2) litigation (1)
Imports (1) 18:6,7 L 18:12
hand (1) 32:15 investigative (1) little (3)
Min-U-Script® (4) frankly - little

Anonymous v.
5:16;20:10;23:6 7:24;14:4 moved (1) 23:1 order (15)

living (1) Media (1) 13:18 noting (1) 5:22;6:25;7:2,9,14,
12:9 4:4 much (6) 20:15 16;8:13;19:3;28:24;
LLP (1) meet (3) 3:17;14:23;19:25; now-divorced (1) 29:10,11;32:7;37:4,
37:13 14:3;18:13;35:24 22:19;24:16;37:20 21:23 10,18
loan (1) Members (2) Murray (1) Nowhere (1) original (1)
23:17 23:22;24:4 34:18 22:21 7:15
long (1) memo (2) must (2) number (2) others (2)
34:9 5:7;20:19 22:5;33:2 19:1,4 18:5;32:24
look (3) mental (1) numerous (2) out (12)
17:13;19:5,5 15:17 N 18:4,8 6:8;9:8;12:23;
lose (1) mentioned (3) NYS2d (1) 14:15;16:6,17;21:6,
24:4 24:11;30:21;34:25 names (1) 34:17 24;23:7;24:1,5;33:7
lot (1) merely (1) 3:2 over (4)
24:5 22:17 nation (1) O 14:12;18:19;23:20;
merit (1) 34:14 25:8
M 33:20 nature (1) object (1) owes (1)
meritorious (3) 36:21 28:19 23:18
Magazine (1) 14:1;32:12,21 necessary (4) objection (2) ownership (3)
18:4 merits (2) 14:2;32:14;33:6; 4:22;28:18 21:13;23:15,17
main (1) 35:9,15 35:14 obligated (1)
16:5 met (1) necessitate (1) 30:10 P
maintain (2) 37:6 36:23 obligation (1)
12:1;35:8 Michael (2) need (11) 7:10 PACER (1)
maintained (1) 3:8;20:9 5:16;9:5;16:13; obligations (1) 16:10
8:10 midst (1) 19:10;21:5;23:12; 25:17 palpable (1)
makes (1) 33:18 26:8;31:12,22,22; obtain (1) 15:2
21:3 might (2) 35:13 33:7 papers (8)
making (4) 29:13;31:3 needs (1) obtained (1) 9:21;12:8;24:11,
8:22;9:3,5;16:3 mind (3) 20:25 8:13 25;26:4;29:4,11,13
Maloney (12) 21:4;22:5;28:11 neither (3) Obvious (1) part (3)
3:8,8;5:15;6:1; missing (1) 14:3;22:11;36:16 33:14 8:25;18:12;27:15
20:8,9;22:5,8,11; 24:1 New (8) obviously (1) particular (1)
26:8,22;37:25 money (2) 14:9,10,11;15:9; 28:11 30:9
Mancheski (1) 23:18;24:5 18:4;32:20;34:9;35:9 occurred (1) parties (17)
36:15 months (2) news (2) 30:18 5:18;7:5;10:10;
Manhattan (1) 8:14;30:18 10:15;34:15 off (1) 21:23;22:12,14,18;
33:3 Moore-Jankowski (1) newsperson (1) 20:11 23:5,12;27:17;30:7;
many (1) 34:17 19:23 officer (1) 34:21,23;35:4,11,18,
24:19 moot (1) newsworthiness (2) 26:14 23
March (3) 37:8 11:10,11 old (1) parties' (1)
5:9,11;16:7 more (10) newsworthy (2) 15:6 27:10
Mark (2) 9:9;14:6,17;15:1,4; 10:14;34:16 once (1) partner (2)
3:5;13:13 16:2;18:16,18,21; next (2) 29:14 3:10;23:19
material (4) 22:20 22:6;27:1 one (14) Partners (1)
6:3,10;14:2;32:13 Moreover (1) nexus (1) 9:16;12:20;13:23; 36:16
materials (1) 34:9 34:23 14:15;16:6;19:1; party (8)
20:16 Mosallem (2) night (2) 23:2;25:8;26:6; 8:7,8,9;25:1,7;
matrimonial (4) 36:8,19 5:8;8:3 30:23,23;31:18; 32:16;33:25;36:10
21:20,22;27:13,15 most (3) nonetheless (1) 33:21;35:14 paying (1)
matter (7) 14:13,15;33:2 37:16 one-month (1) 18:10
4:9,15;5:1;21:18; motion (10) nor (2) 30:17 payroll (1)
24:3;29:14;32:4 16:21;17:2,3,16; 22:12;36:18 only (6) 13:1
May (8) 18:11;26:12;28:10; note (6) 14:21;22:14;27:21; peels (1)
6:15;11:17;23:22, 31:25;37:8,11 18:22;21:11,13,14; 29:24;32:11;36:23 33:21
22;32:3,11,16;35:18 motions (1) 23:14;28:21 open (1) pending (1)
McPherson (10) 17:8 noted (1) 9:8 33:19
3:15;4:16,17;27:2; motivation (1) 32:4 open-ended (1) pentagon (1)
28:13;30:3,16;31:9, 11:20 notice (2) 14:5 12:8
15,18 movant (1) 25:11,19 opportunity (4) people (1)
mean (3) 36:15 noticed (1) 12:17;24:15;29:3,7 10:9
13:4;15:12;31:11 move (1) 13:18 opposition (2) perhaps (1)
meant (2) 13:20 notified (1) 17:2,7 15:4
Min-U-Script® (5) living - perhaps

Anonymous v.
person (1) practice (1) produced (6) purposes (1) 28:24;29:15;31:3,15;

10:15 31:15 5:4;7:8;8:9;25:5; 13:24 34:5
personal (1) pre-action (13) 29:24;33:17 pursuant (3) recent (1)
15:16 4:24;9:5;13:24; professional (1) 5:4;7:8;33:9 10:7
Peter (2) 21:5;26:3;30:14; 34:12 pursue (1) recently (1)
3:3,6 31:8;32:6,11,16;33:7, promote (1) 31:5 14:13
petition (18) 9;34:22 34:16 pursuing (1) recess (2)
4:10,23;13:18,20; preliminary (2) proper (2) 31:2 31:24;32:1
14:24;22:21;23:24; 35:7,7 25:12;35:23 put (4) recognizing (1)
24:11;26:24;28:24; prepared (2) properly (1) 3:21;25:12,18; 34:10
29:2;30:14;32:6,10; 17:14;29:4 28:23 31:17 record (32)
35:2;37:9,12,14 presented (5) protected (4) Putter (1) 3:2,21;4:3,7;5:6,
petitioner (35) 15:2;30:19,23; 4:12;14:9;21:1; 35:9 17,24;6:8;7:16;8:13,
3:4;4:9;13:23; 32:6;33:1 34:13 putting (1) 14,17,18;12:21;18:9;
15:11;20:18,23;21:3, preserve (1) protecting (1) 25:15 19:13;21:9;22:1;
8,12,16;22:3,15,22; 33:13 34:10 24:9;25:12,15,18,24;
23:11,15,19;24:14; Press (4) protection (4) Q 28:17,22,25;31:18;
32:12,21,25;33:3,6,8, 4:2;34:10,11;36:3 14:12,22;20:4; 32:8;34:1;36:2;37:5,
12,25;34:3,6,7,20,24; presumption (2) 34:14 qualified (1) 10
35:1,3,14,24;37:6 10:16;36:3 protections (3) 14:22 records (8)
petitioner's (4) presupposes (1) 13:2,5,8 qualify (1) 5:20,21;8:15;23:9;
33:21;34:22;35:6; 36:13 protects (1) 13:23 36:5,8,10,19
36:25 pretty (2) 12:16 quo (1) redundant (1)
phone (2) 11:24;13:6 protest (1) 35:8 24:25
26:7,11 prima (1) 25:19 quote (1) reference (1)
pick (2) 33:1 provide (1) 17:9 17:19
13:15;20:10 principals (1) 34:14 quote-unquote (1) references (1)
place (2) 36:6 provided (7) 33:13 22:16
4:7;30:5 principle (1) 7:18,20,21;8:11; referred (2)
plaintiff (3) 14:17 14:12,21;16:11 R 10:19;27:7
15:10;18:13;27:6 principles (1) provides (1) reflection (1)
plaintiff's (2) 14:15 7:12 raised (3) 16:17
16:22,23 prior (7) provisions (1) 12:10;27:16;33:8 refuse (1)
plays (1) 11:7;13:19;17:2; 20:13 raises (1) 14:19
34:11 22:23;23:1,4;30:1 public (31) 9:9 regarding (2)
pleadings (1) privacy (1) 6:8;7:14;8:8;9:14, rather (1) 15:21;33:24
18:1 12:1 24;10:3,5,13,21; 4:20 regards (2)
please (2) private (4) 11:23;12:5,5;18:23; read (7) 7:4;12:13
3:1;7:3 8:7,8,9;15:16 21:1;23:9,12,13,16, 5:23;8:1,2;9:21; related (3)
pled (1) privilege (3) 22;24:3,4,8;25:12,15, 26:4,14;28:10 15:20;16:19;29:21
35:22 14:9,22;19:9 18;31:18;34:17;36:3, reading (3) relating (3)
point (8) privity (1) 12,13,21 12:11;19:21;22:5 7:12;33:15;34:6
7:3;13:15;21:6; 36:18 publications (1) ready (2) relations (4)
22:6;23:10;24:7; probably (1) 18:4 4:8;29:4 7:11,13;21:17;
29:19;30:4 28:5 publicly (6) realized (1) 22:17
pointed (3) problem (1) 9:18;16:7;17:25; 18:21 relevant (1)
14:14;16:6;23:7 29:16 19:4;23:17,21 really (5) 11:9
points (1) problems (2) public's (3) 9:16;12:6;18:15; relied (3)
24:17 5:3;8:6 9:19;11:14,25 23:16;33:22 12:13;17:11;21:2
portions (2) Procedure (1) publish (1) reason (6) relief (6)
17:19;20:16 20:13 33:23 9:12,13;11:12; 4:23;15:10;32:23;
position (10) proceed (4) published (4) 18:25;29:24;31:12 37:2,7,15
4:18;27:23;28:19, 4:8;28:25;32:8; 8:15;9:9,14;19:5 reasonable (1) remain (4)
22;29:5,16;30:15; 37:5 publishes (1) 25:11 6:5,6,11,23
31:8,19,19 proceeding (17) 10:15 reasonably (1) remaining (1)
possible (2) 8:9;14:3;15:21; publishing (4) 8:10 3:12
9:10;28:7 17:1;20:16;21:20,22; 11:13,20;12:14; reasons (5) Reorg (1)
post-judgment (1) 22:20;28:17,19; 25:23 13:22;15:25;16:5; 34:18
27:16 29:22;33:11,17,18; purchase (1) 19:7;24:10 report (1)
postponed (1) 35:5;36:21;37:3 23:23 rebut (1) 34:15
13:19 proceedings (6) purpose (4) 24:15 reporter (4)
potential (3) 9:1;14:4;25:2,6; 11:13;19:21;25:25; received (8) 13:14;14:19;18:3;
21:24;31:2;36:17 36:4,5 35:7 8:12;16:15;20:20; 25:24
Min-U-Script® (6) person - reporter

Anonymous v.
Reporters (2) reveals (1) 26:16;27:23;34:5; shilling (1) 23:24

4:1;14:13 34:2 37:1 11:15 Stanton (6)
represent (1) reversed (1) sealing (11) short (1) 5:8,22;6:7;7:14;
25:1 10:12 4:23;5:19,21;6:3; 11:18 8:12,14
representation (4) Richard (1) 8:13;14:25;16:1; show (11) Stanton's (1)
4:21;30:16,17;31:1 23:20 19:2;28:16;32:7;36:1 10:5;19:20;23:8, 7:2
representations (3) right (21) seated (1) 13,15;28:24;29:10, state (3)
15:21,22;21:13 3:17;4:8;5:10;10:4, 32:3 11;32:7;37:4,10 3:2;13:8;15:9
represented (2) 13,21;11:14,17,23; secondly (1) showing (2) stated (1)
3:20;4:17 12:1;13:9;14:18; 14:6 10:16;35:20 27:6
representing (2) 17:17;19:25;22:4; secrete (1) shown (6) statement (2)
3:11;25:7 23:13;28:12;31:11, 33:15 6:2,20,24;9:16; 13:6;26:9
reputation (1) 23;36:4,7 Section (1) 27:9;35:15 states (1)
36:17 rights (4) 14:11 shows (1) 21:20
request (11) 5:19,20;11:25;12:5 secured (1) 11:10 status (1)
21:3,5;25:3,5; Robert (2) 23:17 side (3) 35:8
26:24;29:3,7,23; 3:25;15:3 securities (2) 11:17,18;28:5 statute (1)
34:22;35:6,19 Rockmore (4) 18:12,13 sides (1) 7:11
requested (1) 18:22;21:11;23:14; seeking (5) 11:16 statutes (1)
37:15 24:22 12:12;15:11;32:7; signatures (1) 19:17
requests (1) role (1) 33:22;36:10 12:3 stay (1)
33:12 34:11 seeks (1) signed (3) 6:8
require (1) Rosanne (1) 14:7 22:14;26:13;30:23 still (1)
24:18 3:10 sellers (1) Simply (3) 33:18
requirements (1) rule (1) 11:18 13:3;23:3;25:15 stipulated (1)
13:24 31:25 sending (2) sit (2) 33:10
research (2) Rules (2) 18:20;31:2 7:1;11:5 stock (1)
18:7;34:18 20:13,14 sends (1) situation (3) 23:23
researching (1) ruling (1) 25:9 10:17;15:13;31:7 stories (2)
18:9 6:19 sensitive (1) six (2) 11:20,21
reservation (1) running (1) 33:16 8:13;30:18 strongly (1)
5:19 10:9 sent (4) six-month (2) 24:8
reserve (1) 19:1;27:11;28:4,5 9:7;25:21 study (1)
5:20 S separate (2) Sloan (9) 18:18
resolve (1) 7:11;12:19 17:5;21:10;24:1, studying (1)
21:24 sake (3) separately (1) 10;25:4,4;27:7; 18:9
respect (4) 7:25;19:12;22:1 7:16 30:20;31:3 subject (8)
15:19;18:22;30:16; salary (1) September (1) so-called (1) 5:18;7:15;9:1;19:2,
31:9 13:1 17:12 21:11 3;20:12;22:2;27:8
respond (2) sale (1) serve (1) society (1) submitted (2)
29:3,7 23:23 29:6 34:12 5:7;8:2
responded (2) same (1) served (4) somebody (1) substantial (3)
27:17;29:13 29:13 4:18;28:23;29:4,13 9:15 11:12;23:18;35:25
respondent (2) sanctions (4) service (2) someone (2) substantive (1)
3:5,19 16:21;17:7,7,16 29:2,12 13:1;19:19 9:15
respondents (7) saw (2) settled (1) sorry (2) succeed (1)
3:9,12;20:9;23:12; 18:11,15 21:20 7:21;10:1 35:19
28:4;33:14;35:18 saying (4) several (1) sought (4) success (1)
response (6) 10:12,18;12:4;26:7 11:21 4:23;9:21;10:10; 35:15
3:20;4:15;16:22; SCHULZ (3) shall (4) 32:13 suffer (1)
25:4,5;31:4 4:3,4;15:3 6:5,6,11,23 source (8) 35:21
responsive (1) seal (12) Shapiro (1) 12:12,23;14:8,19; sufficient (1)
5:7 4:25;7:4;10:18,20; 3:6 16:5;17:13;18:20; 29:12
restricted (1) 12:21;26:24;28:24; Shenoy (4) 33:22 suggestion (1)
18:15 35:12;36:10,19;37:4, 3:15,15;28:14; sources (1) 21:15
restricting (1) 10 30:13 13:17 suit (1)
36:12 sealed (32) Sheryl (1) sparingly (1) 15:20
restrictions (1) 5:6,16;6:7,11,23; 3:14 36:22 summer (1)
19:3 7:13,16,16;8:14,15, shield (8) speak (1) 18:19
result (1) 18,23;15:18,24; 12:15,18,21;13:2, 30:21 support (1)
36:14 16:16,19,20,24,25; 5;14:10;25:25;34:13 spoken (4) 37:7
return (1) 17:20,23;19:6;20:17, shiller (1) 21:9;26:17,18,20 supposed (2)
31:24 17,22,22,25;23:9; 19:19 stand (1) 5:12,13
Min-U-Script® (7) Reporters - supposed

Anonymous v.
Supreme (1) 22:8;23:6 25:4 14:14,20 17:12

10:12 traded (2) update (1) without (3) 217 (1)
sure (6) 23:18,21 5:6 23:25;30:8;37:14 33:4
4:13;6:9;10:25; tradition (1) upon (6) word (1) 23rd (1)
16:3;19:18;27:18 34:9 12:13;16:17;17:11; 31:13 21:21
Surface (1) transferred (1) 20:20;21:1;32:5 working (2) 25 (1)
33:3 30:2 use (1) 12:25,25 34:18
switched (1) Transit (2) 36:21 world (3) 250 (1)
10:2 32:20;33:4 used (2) 16:8,9,11 35:10
system (1) Tremaine (1) 32:16;36:22 Wright (1) 26 (1)
16:10 4:1 4:1 20:13
true (1) V writing (1) 265 (1)
T 21:18 17:11 32:20
trying (2) valuable (1) written (3) 27 (2)
talk (1) 12:8;21:24 24:2 17:21,21;18:3 32:20;36:24
11:7 turns (2) verified (1) wrong (2) 271 (1)
talking (3) 12:23;16:17 22:21 14:2;32:14 32:15
11:6,10;23:24 two (15) versus (13) wrote (2) 277 (1)
team (1) 3:12;5:3;8:6,17; 7:5;8:8;9:8;28:17, 18:19;26:13 35:10
8:1 9:7;13:22;16:5,7; 20,25;32:15,19;33:3;
teed (1) 18:24;19:4;21:23; 34:17,18;36:8,15 X 3
14:23 22:17;25:13;26:7,11 viable (1)
telephone (1) two-day (3) 13:25 XpresSpa (1) 3102c (1)
25:14 8:23;9:13,17 view (2) 23:24 33:9
Teri (4) type (1) 14:23;24:7 345 (1)
3:5,6;13:14;37:12 15:23 viewing (1) Y 36:9
term (1) types (1) 33:4 346 (1)
28:15 14:4 violation (2) year (1) 33:4
terms (3) 27:19;28:1 21:21 349 (1)
5:4;25:17;30:13 U violations (1) years (2) 36:19
testimony (1) 30:9 14:12;15:4 356 (1)
31:14 Uddin (1) voluminous (1) York (7) 36:24
thereto (1) 32:19 31:16 14:9,10,11;15:9; 39 (1)
22:14 ultimately (1) 18:4;32:20;35:10 36:16
though (2) 20:20 W York's (1)
4:13;19:18 unaware (1) 34:9 4
thought (1) 34:2 wade (1)
18:16 under (9) 19:8 1 445 (1)
thus (1) 10:4;14:9;19:16, warranting (1) 34:19
29:6 17,23;32:8;35:12; 37:2 1 (1) 499 (1)
tied (2) 37:3,5 way (2) 14:10 36:16
17:23,24 undergoing (1) 21:16;27:19 100 (1)
times (1) 10:9 website (1) 14:12 5
21:9 underlying (6) 11:15 152 (1)
timing (1) 4:24;21:3;26:3; week (2) 34:18 535 (1)
9:11 28:23;29:2;30:13 5:13,22 1990's (1) 32:15
today (14) understandably (1) weigh (1) 18:15
3:20;4:17;10:17; 15:18 11:24 1st (1) 6
12:20;13:16,20; understands (1) weighs (2) 5:11
14:23;21:8,16;23:7, 19:22 8:7;24:8 60 (1)
24;26:18;27:22; unless (3) well-established (1) 2 15:4
28:16 6:2,14,20 14:18
told (1) unseal (1) well-known (1) 2013 (2) 7
29:25 37:8 27:13 10:7;14:20
topic (1) unsealed (2) weren't (1) 2015 (1) 70 (1)
22:9 8:18;24:9 4:18 22:14 15:4
tortiously (1) unusual (2) what's (3) 2016 (1) 76 (2)
22:25 18:12;36:23 10:21;11:8;23:14 21:21 36:9,19
tortuous (1) unveil (1) whatsoever (1) 2017 (1) 77 (1)
32:22 12:24 20:1 21:19 34:17
total (1) up (7) Whereupon (2) 2018 (1)
36:1 5:16;6:15;13:15; 6:16;32:1 10:8 8
touch (2) 14:23;19:18;20:10; Winter (2) 2019 (1)
Min-U-Script® (8) Supreme - 77

Anonymous v.
8 (1)
14:11
8th (1)
5:9
9
9th (1)
21:19
Min-U-Script® (9) 8 - 9th

Bruce Bernstein vs. Journalist Teri Buhl Court Transcript 3.5.19 New York Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Bruce Bernstein vs. Journalist Teri Buhl Court Transcript 3.5.19 New York Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

1

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

15 CANE LAW LLP

18 DAVID BOLTON, ESQ.

12 THE MCPHERSON FIRM, P.C.

19 MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION ACCESS CLINIC

1 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Would you please

2 state your names and appearances for the record?

3 MR. CANE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Peter

5 MR. BAILEN: Mark Bailen for respondent, Teri

6 Buhl, with me is Peter Shapiro, and Teri Buhl is in the

8 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, Michael Maloney on

9 behalf of respondents, CKR Law and the Binns, and my

12 the remaining two respondents?

15 MS. SHENOY: Deepti Shenoy for the McPherson

17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

18 MR. CANE: Your Honor, there's also another

19 respondent. The Cohen Clair Law Firm didn't file a

21 THE COURT: We'll put that on the record,

22 because we didn't see anything from them, and we didn't

25 MR. BALIN: Your Honor, I'm Robert Balin,

1 Davis, Wright, Tremaine, for Amici Reporters Committee

2 for Freedom of the Press.

3 MR. SCHULZ: For the record, Judge, I'm David

5 Clinic, also here on behalf of Amici.

6 THE COURT: Is there anyone else who would

8 All right, then. We are ready to proceed in

9 this matter. Counsel for the petitioner, this is your

12 to see that the first amendment is so well protected in

15 administrative matter, there was no response filed by

17 The McPherson Firm is represented here today. I think

18 they are going to take the position they weren't served,

19 but this is the first I've heard of them. From them,

21 understanding, from a representation from counsel for

22 Ms. Aufrichtig, Ms. Aufrichtig has no objection to the

24 and the underlying application for pre-action discovery.

25 THE COURT: Counsel, why should I seal this

2 MR. CANE: Because there is -- the good cause

3 is, there are two problems that my client has. He

5 of the confidentiality agreement. Then the federal

6 court sealed the record. And just as an update, I

8 last night, but Judge Stanton --

9 THE COURT: On March 8th there's something

12 THE COURT: Something is supposed to happen.

15 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, Judge, I think we

17 documents on the record in the federal case on the

18 consent of all parties to that case, subject to my

19 client's reservation of rights to challenge the sealing

21 challenge the sealing of those records.

22 The other week, Judge Stanton issued an order,

24 text for the record.

25 THE COURT: We have it, too.

1 MR. MALONEY: Okay. Basically, it says that

2 unless good cause is shown by this Friday, the judge

3 will lift the sealing of all material except for that

5 MR. CANE: Which shall remain. Which -- well,

6 finish what it says. It says, "which shall remain

8 documents should stay out of the public record.

9 THE COURT: I'm not sure that's what it says.

12 THE COURT: But continue.

15 MR. CANE: May I hand this up, your Honor?

18 MR. CANE: It's an exception to the general

22 MR. CANE: Except that concerning

24 irrespective of whether good cause is shown to the

25 contrary. That's what the order says.

1 THE COURT: Well, we are not going to sit here

2 and argue Judge Stanton's order. We have enough before