United States of America v. Cooke Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-05743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United States of America v. Cooke Inc., Judge Furman temporarily granted Defendants’ request to seal three commercially sensitive exhibits pending review.
The temporary sealing order affects the defendants who sought to restrict public access to three exhibits, the relators who consented to the request, and members of the public seeking access to those court-filed materials. The court has not yet made a final decision about continued sealing or redaction.
What happened
In United States of America ex rel. W. Benson Chiles and Chris Manthey v. Cooke Inc. et al., the defendants asked to remove parts of three exhibits from the public version of documents filed with their motion to dismiss. The exhibits were forms of a stockholders agreement, a fish supply agreement, and a warrant.
The defendants said the exhibits contained confidential commercial, financial, proprietary, and pricing information. They also said the Maritime Administration had determined that significant portions of related materials were exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The relators agreed to an order temporarily sealing the materials.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the request to seal. The court said it would decide whether the documents should remain sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying dispute, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the sealing motion.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. Cooke Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05743
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 23, 2024
Background
The defendants—Alpha VesselCo Holdings, Inc., Alpha VesselCo, LLC, Seth Dunlop, Gregory Dunlop, and Montgomery Deihl—asked for permission to redact portions of an attachment to their motion to dismiss and file those portions under seal. The request concerned three exhibits attached to an October 19, 2017 letter to the Maritime Administration: Exhibit C-3, a form of stockholders agreement; Exhibit D, a form of fish supply agreement; and Exhibit E, a form of warrant.
The defendants said the exhibits contained competitively sensitive information, including pricing information. They also stated that the Maritime Administration had determined that significant portions of the letter and its attachments were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The defendants did not seek to seal the letter itself or exhibits cited in the motion-to-dismiss memorandum. The relators consented to an order like the one previously entered in the case.
Legal standard and ruling
The court applied the standard governing requests to seal judicial documents, which balances the public’s right of access against competing interests such as financial harm or significant competitive disadvantage. The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would later assess whether the documents should remain sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying dispute. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 54.
What the order does not decide
This order does not decide the underlying motion to dismiss or the merits of the dispute. It only addresses temporary sealing of the identified exhibits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.