U.S. Bank N.A. v. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc.

U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31401(U) April 21, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650369/2013 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

INDEX NO. 650369/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1204 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/21/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ,BY, INDEX NO. 650369/2013

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 02/24/2025 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 031 DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 031) 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190 were read on this motion to SEAL .

Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee (the “Trustee”)

of the Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-1 (the “Trust”) moves for an order sealing and/or redacting

portions of a Decision + Order on Motion entered in U.S. Bank N.A. v. DLJ Mortg. Cap., Inc.,

(Sup Ct, NY County, Index Nos. 652699/2013, 651174/2013, and 654157/2012, dated December

², 2019 [Friedman, J.]) (NYSCEF 1176 [the “Decision”]) and the Direction and Indemnity

Agreement between the Trustee and the directing certificateholders of the Trust with respect to

the prosecution of this action (NYSCEF 1177 [the “D&I”]) filed in connection with the

Affirmation of David J Abrams in Support of Plaintiff's Calculation of Damages application.

No parties oppose this request. For the following reasons, the Trustee’s motion is granted in

part.

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

650369/2013 U.S. BANK NATIONAL vs. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC. Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 031

INDEX NO. 650369/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1204 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/21/2025

INDEX NO. 650369/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1204 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/21/2025

INDEX NO. 650369/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1204 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/21/2025

Footnotes

[1] of 4 [* 1] 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]). “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]). Good cause must “rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action” (Danco Labs., 274 AD2d at 9). Agreements to seal are insufficient as such agreements do not establish “good cause” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 33147[U], * 9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]). Justice Friedman previously approved redactions to her Decision in the actions (including this present action) in which the Decision was issued (see NYSCEF 1189), and the Decision was filed under seal in those cases and a redacted version was filed on the dockets (Index No. 651174/2013, NYSCEF 414, 416); (Index No. 654157/2012, NYSCEF 400, 402); (Index No. 652699/2013, NYSCEF 286, 289). Deferring to that ruling, the Court grants the request to file the same redacted version of the Decision here. 650369/2013 U.S. BANK NATIONAL vs. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC. Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 031

[2] of 4 [* 2] According to the Trustee, the approved redactions of the Decision were quotes from and references to a similar D&I Agreement to the one the Trustee seeks to seal here (NYSCEF 1184 [“Valaperta Affirm”] ¶6). Justice Friedman held that “the Trustee had demonstrated good cause, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1, for the sealing, because the information sought to be redacted consisted of confidential communications concerning the Direction and Indemnity Agreements and the Joinder Agreements and references to confidential information concerning the transactions and related invoices” (NYSCEF 1189). However, Justice Friedman’s decision states that the Trustee sought redactions of the “similar D&I Agreement” (id.). Therefore, the Court will only grant redactions of the D&I that are consistent with Justice Friedman’s Order granting redactions of the similar D&I, not the full sealing requested here (unless that was previously granted by Justice Friedman). The Trustee is directed to refile the D&I with those redactions within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Trustee’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART; it is further ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Number(s) NYSCEF 1188 in its current, redacted form; it is further ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Number(s) 1176, 1177, and 1187 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further ORDERED that the Trustee shall file a redacted version of the D&I Agreement consistent with this Court’s instructions within seven (7) days of the date of this Order; it is further 650369/2013 U.S. BANK NATIONAL vs. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC. Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 031

[3] of 4 [* 3] ORDERED that the Trustee shall serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk’s Office within five (5) days of the date of this Order, and such service shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website); it is further ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this Order, parties may file a joint stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any redacted document is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial. 4/21/2025 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION □ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER □ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 650369/2013 U.S. BANK NATIONAL vs. DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC. Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 031

[4] of 4 [* 4]