Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2025

41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-08634
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In 41-45 Property Owner v. CDM1, Judge Schofield ordered the parties to justify sealing witness lists or face public filing.

Who this affects

41-45 Property Owner, LLC and CDM1, LLC, whose trial witness lists may become publicly accessible, as well as members of the public seeking access to those court filings.

What happened

41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC concerns witness lists that both parties filed under seal before trial.

The court explained that sealing requires weighing the public’s access to court documents against competing interests, including privacy. The court said there appeared to be no legally recognized reason to keep these witness lists sealed.

Judge Schofield ordered the parties to apply for continued sealing by September 15, 2025, if they had a reason to do so. Otherwise, the seals would be removed from the witness lists.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08634
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Sept. 11, 2025

Background

On September 8, 2025, the parties filed lists of the witnesses they intended to call at trial. They filed those lists under seal at Docket Nos. 134 and 135.

Sealing Standard

The court described a three-part inquiry for sealing documents. First, the court determines whether the document is a judicial document subject to a presumed right of public access because it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, if that presumption applies, the court determines its strength by considering the document’s role in the exercise of federal judicial power and its value to people monitoring the courts. Third, the court balances that presumption against competing considerations, such as privacy interests, the risk of impairing law enforcement, and judicial efficiency. The court also noted that sealing requires specific findings showing that closure is essential to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.

Order

The court stated that there appeared to be no legally cognizable reason for keeping the witness lists under seal. Judge Schofield ordered that, if there was any reason to keep them sealed, the parties had to apply to file them under seal in accordance with her Individual Rules by September 15, 2025. The court further ordered that, if no such application was made, the seals would be removed from the witness lists at Docket Nos. 134 and 135.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.