Lee v. Golaszewski
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-10695
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Lee v. Golaszewski, Judge Halpern granted defendants’ request to keep specified business information redacted in public filings and unredacted versions sealed.
Richard Golaszewski and Stephen Swentzel, HPC, the third parties who requested particular redactions, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Lee v. Golaszewski and Swentzel concerns filings that refer to confidential information produced during discovery in a dispute involving GP financing businesses. The parties and certain third parties had agreed to a protective order governing confidential and highly confidential materials.
Defendants Richard Golaszewski and Stephen Swentzel asked to redact specified portions of their pre-motion letter and their statement of undisputed facts. They said the information included proprietary financial models, capital-raising and deployment figures, business strategies, investor communications, and other sensitive business information. They also identified redactions requested by third parties.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The redacted documents remain the public versions of the defendants’ pre-motion letter and statement, while the unredacted version remains under seal.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Golaszewski · No. 7:23-cv-10695
- Philip Halpern
- June 10, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Lee’s complaint concerns competing GP financing solutions businesses. Discovery included documents and deposition testimony involving the parties and third parties in that business sector. The parties entered a confidentiality and protective order, which the court approved on February 15, 2024. The order allowed parties and non-parties to designate material as confidential or highly confidential and required court filings that cited such material to be filed under seal with a redacted public version.
Request for Redactions
Richard Golaszewski and Stephen Swentzel asked the court to approve redactions to their pre-motion letter concerning summary judgment and their statement of undisputed facts. The requested redactions covered specified sentences, paragraphs, portions of paragraphs, and portions of Lee’s responses. The defendants identified information concerning HPC’s capital raising and deployment, financial models, business strategies, confidential offer letters and financial proposals, communications with potential investors, and internal business discussions. They stated that disclosure could harm HPC’s business and competitive position.
The defendants also reported redactions requested by third parties. Those involved an excerpt of paragraph 37 and Lee’s response at the request of HPS Partners, portions of paragraphs 52 and 53 at the request of 17Capital, and paragraph 64 at the request of OHA. The defendants stated that they did not take a position on whether other portions of the statement should be redacted.
Court’s Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application granted.” It directed that the redacted documents filed at Document 59 remain the publicly filed versions of the defendants’ pre-motion letter and Rule 56.1 statement, and that the unredacted version filed at Document 58 remain under seal. The court’s stated basis in the embedded ruling is the protection of the specified confidential information from public disclosure.
Legal Framework Described
The opinion explains that when a party seeks to redact or seal a court filing, the court determines whether the filing is a judicial document, assesses the weight of the presumption of public access, and then weighs factors that support restricting access. Papers submitted in connection with summary judgment receive a strong presumption of public access, but competitive harm from disclosure of confidential business information may outweigh that presumption.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.