Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation, Cross-Respondents, -v- Levona…

Background

The intervenors—Apargo Limited, Fentalon Limited, and Desimusco Trading Limited—and Reed Smith LLP sought continued sealing of documents filed by Eletson Holdings and Levona Holdings Ltd. in connection with Levona’s cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award. Reed Smith and the intervenors requested redactions for various filings, and Reed Smith also sought to keep some documents sealed in their entirety. Levona and Eletson opposed the requests.

Legal standard

The court stated that judicial documents—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process—are presumed to be open to the public. The strength of that presumption depends on how closely the documents affect the court’s decision. Documents submitted for summary judgment generally receive a strong presumption of public access, and the court explained that a petition to confirm an arbitration award is treated similarly because it can finally determine the parties’ rights.

A party seeking to overcome that presumption must show, through specific findings, that secrecy is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. Confidential commercial information and trade secrets can sometimes justify sealing. The court may consider whether the information remains relevant to the business and how much competitive harm disclosure would cause.

Court’s analysis

The court independently reviewed the documents under the applicable public-access standards. It found that any commercial or financial information in the documents was stale because it dated from years earlier and preceded the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order changing Eletson’s ownership. The court also held that the bankruptcy court’s protective order did not bind this court’s decision about whether filings submitted in the arbitration-related proceedings should be sealed.

The court further addressed three documents identified by Reed Smith as containing potentially privileged information: Docket Nos. 556-4, 556-5, and 556-30. One included correspondence with attorneys other than Reed Smith. The other two contained or relayed correspondence between Reed Smith and Eletson. The court stated that the documents had been produced to Eletson under the Microsoft Order and, for reasons previously stated in Docket No. 571, neither Reed Smith nor the intervenors had a protected interest in them. The court also noted that Levona already had access to the documents under a prior court order.

Disposition

The court ordered the following documents, which had been provisionally filed under seal, unsealed along with all attachments: Docket Nos. 549, 550, 551, 555, 556, 559, and 557. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Nos. 548 and 554. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide the underlying cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award in this order; the order addressed access to court filings.