Shim v. Luxury Asset Capital, LLC

Background

Plaintiff Junsub Shim filed a renewed letter motion seeking permission to file a redacted amended complaint and jury demand, together with redacted exhibits. The proposed redactions concerned the purchase price of artwork, confidential bank-account information of Carmichael Gallery, LLC, and personal information in Shim’s passport. The motion stated that the purchase agreement also contained a confidentiality provision covering the agreement’s subject matter, including the purchase price.

The motion referred to an earlier proceeding in which the court had allowed redactions of the same categories of information. It argued that disclosure of the purchase price could harm the parties’ ability to negotiate a future sale of the artwork and that publicly releasing personal data would unnecessarily expose it to third parties.

Legal standard

The court treated the amended complaint and exhibits as judicial documents, meaning documents relevant to the court’s work and generally subject to public access. Under the standard discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, that access interest can be outweighed by specific interests such as protecting sensitive commercial information and personal data. Any sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored to protect those interests.

Ruling

The court determined that the confidentiality of the artwork’s purchase price and the protection of Shim’s personal information outweighed the presumption of full public access. The court directed the Clerk to maintain the unredacted versions of the amended complaint and exhibits under seal. It also directed the Clerk to close docket number 7. The order does not state a separate disposition using the words “granted” or “denied.”