Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-03982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chelsea Hotel Owner v. City of New York, Judge Lehrburger allowed plaintiffs to file Exhibit 10 under seal while confidentiality issues were resolved.
The order affected plaintiffs Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, Ira Drukier, Richard Born, and Sean MacPherson, the City of New York, and public access to Exhibit 10.
What happened
Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, Ira Drukier, Richard Born, and Sean MacPherson asked to file Exhibit 10 under seal in Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York. The exhibit had been labeled confidential under the parties’ protective order.
The plaintiffs said they had no independent basis for seeking a seal and did not believe the document needed to remain sealed in full. They requested sealing temporarily so the parties could discuss the exhibit’s status or the City could seek a sealing order.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger approved the request to file Exhibit 10 under seal, nunc pro tunc. The plaintiffs preserved their ability to oppose any later request to keep the exhibit sealed and to seek its unsealing.
The detailed version
- Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03982
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, Ira Drukier, Richard Born, and Sean MacPherson asked for permission to file Exhibit 10 to their response to the defendant’s June 14, 2024 letter under seal. The defendant had designated Exhibit 10 as confidential under a stipulated protective order in the case.
The Request
The plaintiffs stated that they had no independent basis for seeking a sealing order and did not believe the limited use of Exhibit 10 justified sealing the document in its entirety. They sought permission to file it under seal while the parties conferred about its status under the protective order or while the defendant considered whether to file its own motion for a sealing order.
The plaintiffs also reserved the right to oppose a later sealing request and to seek unsealing. They cited the public’s presumptive First Amendment right to access judicial documents and argued that any sealing request would need to be narrowly tailored.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger approved the request to file Exhibit 10 under seal, with the order entered nunc pro tunc. The text does not state that the court decided whether Exhibit 10 should remain sealed permanently or whether the defendant was entitled to a broader sealing order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.