360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-00767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 360 N. Rodeo Drive v. Wells Fargo, Judge Subramanian granted defendants’ request to seal one spreadsheet containing nonpublic property-financial information.
The ruling affects 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP, the defendant financial institutions, and public access to the spreadsheet’s nonpublic property and financial information.
What happened
360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association concerns defendants’ request to file one document under seal in support of their summary-judgment motion.
The document was a spreadsheet listing real estate properties owned or partly owned by Efrem Harkham. It contained nonpublic information, including property values, mortgage balances, rental revenues, operating expenses, and net cash flow. The spreadsheet was removed from the publicly filed materials and submitted in a sealed filing.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket 85.
The detailed version
- 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association · No. 1:22-cv-00767
- Subramanian
- June 3, 2024
Background
Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for the benefit of the holders of certain mortgage-trust certificates, and Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, N.A., asked for permission to file one document under seal in support of their motion for summary judgment against 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP. The request was made under Rule 11 of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases and a stipulated protective order.
The document was Exhibit 8 to the declaration of Juthamas J. Suwatanapongched. It was a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet concerning real estate properties owned or partly owned by Efrem Harkham. The spreadsheet had been submitted to a lender, updated on June 25, 2021, and attached to an email included in another exhibit. It contained nonpublic financial information, including the properties’ market values, mortgage balances, rental revenues, operating expenses, and net cash flow.
Before filing their motion, defendants gave the motion papers to plaintiff so it could reconsider its confidentiality designations. Plaintiff withdrew its request to keep certain emails and deposition passages confidential. Plaintiff also agreed that one separately bound deposition portion could be omitted from the public transcript. Plaintiff continued to seek confidential treatment only for the spreadsheet.
Court’s Ruling
The court granted the request to seal the spreadsheet. The publicly filed version of the declaration omitted the spreadsheet, while a PDF version containing it was filed under seal. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket 85.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.