## Facts

- Dr. Robert M. Bernholc, an anesthesiologist, was subjected to hospital monitoring and internal peer-review/quality-management proceedings after an operating-room incident on March 8, 2000.
- A peer-review hearing was scheduled for July 10, 2000; Bernholc did not appear, and the hospital treated his noncompliance as a resignation from the anesthesiology department.
- Bernholc filed a civil action seeking money damages on multiple causes of action, primarily defamation and breach of contract.
- During the litigation, defendants obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order that sealed the entire court record and barred Bernholc from disclosing information about the peer-review process to third parties.
- Defendants then moved under CPLR 3103(a) and 22 NYCRR § 216.1 for a protective order (1) sealing the entire record and (2) prohibiting Bernholc from disclosing peer-review/quality-management information, citing Public Health Law § 2805-m(2), Education Law § 6527, and 42 U.S.C. § 11137(b).

## Issues

1. Whether defendants showed “good cause” under 22 NYCRR § 216.1 and CPLR 3103(a) to seal the entire court record in an action primarily alleging defamation and breach of contract arising from hospital peer-review activity.
2. Whether the court should prohibit the plaintiff from disclosing to third parties information regarding internal peer-review and quality-management activities based on state and federal peer-review confidentiality provisions.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion in its entirety.
- The court vacated the ex parte temporary restraining order that had sealed the record and restricted plaintiff’s disclosures.
- The court held defendants failed to justify blanket sealing or a broad nondisclosure restraint, given the presumption of public access and the limited scope of peer-review confidentiality statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Court records may be sealed under 22 NYCRR § 216.1 only upon a written finding of “good cause,” after weighing public and private interests; blanket sealing is disfavored.
- Peer-review confidentiality provisions (Public Health Law § 2805-m(2), Education Law § 6527, and 42 U.S.C. § 11137(b)) do not automatically authorize sealing judicial records or imposing broad speech restraints in civil litigation.
- Generalized or speculative claims that disclosure will impair peer review or risk confidentiality are insufficient to establish good cause for sealing or an expansive protective order.
- Requests restricting disclosure must be narrowly tailored; less restrictive measures (e.g., targeted protection of specific materials, redactions, in camera review) are preferred over sealing an entire file or broadly barring a party’s speech.

## Conclusion

The court refused to seal the full record or impose a sweeping nondisclosure order in a physician’s defamation and contract dispute stemming from hospital peer review, finding no good cause to overcome the presumption of open courts and no statutory basis for litigation-wide secrecy.


Bernholc v. Kitain, 186 Misc. 2d 697, 720 N.Y.S.2d 737 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2000)