Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-07331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eletson Holdings v. Levona Holdings, Judge Liman denied temporary sealing relief and allowed Petitioners to supplement their request by July 15, 2024.
Eletson Holdings, Inc. and Eletson Corporation must supplement their sealing request by July 15, 2024; Levona Holdings Ltd.’s proposed redacted filings remain subject to the court’s filing and sealing procedures, and the public-access issue was not finally decided.
What happened
In Eletson Holdings, Inc. and Eletson Corporation v. Levona Holdings Ltd., Levona asked to file an amended answer, cross-petition, and related documents in redacted form for seven days. Petitioners asked the court to keep those materials sealed until it decided Levona’s motion to amend.
The court treated Petitioners’ request as an application to depart from the court’s filing and sealing procedures. It explained that the public’s right to access court filings begins when documents are filed, and that the court must review sealing requests document by document. The court had not decided whether the materials should remain sealed, but said it needed a more complete submission from Petitioners.
The court denied the application for relief from its procedures and gave Petitioners until July 15, 2024, to provide additional individualized information supporting continued sealing. Judge Lewis J. Liman stated that the court would not necessarily wait to decide the sealing issue until after ruling on the motion to amend.
The detailed version
- Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-07331
- Lewis Liman
- July 10, 2024
Background
Levona Holdings Ltd. asked for permission to file an amended answer, cross-petition to vacate, and related documents in redacted form temporarily, for seven days. The request was consistent with Judge Liman’s individual rules and Attachment B, which provide a seven-day period for a party claiming confidentiality to support a request to keep materials confidential under the standards of Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions.
Petitioners Eletson Holdings, Inc. and Eletson Corporation asked the court to keep the materials sealed until it ruled on Levona’s motion to amend. They argued that, if the court denied the amendment request, it would then have to keep the documents sealed.
Court’s Analysis
The court construed Petitioners’ letter as an application for relief from the court’s individual practices and Attachment B, and denied that application. The court explained that the presumption of public access attaches when a document is filed and does not disappear afterward. It also noted that the public is entitled to know what was presented to the judge, including material the judge ultimately did not rely on.
The court further stated that it must review sealing requests individually. It had not prejudged Petitioners’ request to keep the materials sealed, but Petitioners’ letter did not clearly show that they had presented all of their arguments. The court also stated that it could not and would not necessarily wait until it decided the motion to amend before addressing whether the documents should remain sealed. The court cited the possibility that each day a document is improperly kept under seal could constitute a separate violation of First Amendment access rights.
Disposition
The court denied Petitioners’ application for relief from its filing and sealing procedures. It gave Petitioners until July 15, 2024, to supplement their letter with any additional individualized information they wanted the court to consider. The order did not decide whether the materials ultimately should remain under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.