Frank Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
Frank Brunckhorst III, individually and in his capacity as trustee of The Frank Brunckhorst III 2001 Trust v. Eric Bischoff et al.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brunckhorst v. Bischoff, Judge Cronan approved sealing and redactions for specified filings while the parties’ summary-judgment and amendment motions remained pending.
The parties in the case and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings were affected by the sealing and redaction order.
What happened
In Frank Brunckhorst III v. Eric Bischoff, the parties asked the court to seal or partially redact materials connected to pending motions for summary judgment and to amend the case filings.
The court found that the requested protections were warranted because the materials contained confidential business information and private financial and identifying information. It ordered specified filings to remain under seal and approved proposed redactions to other publicly accessible filings.
Judge John P. Cronan also directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 513, 530, 531, 538, and 552. This order addressed access to filings and did not decide the pending motions’ underlying issues.
The detailed version
- Frank Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Sept. 29, 2025
Background
The parties moved to seal or file in partially redacted form materials related to pending summary-judgment motions and a motion to amend. The requests were submitted at Docket Numbers 513, 530, 531, 538, 552, and 558. The opinion also referred to the court’s earlier rulings on sealing at Docket Numbers 298 and 478.
Court’s analysis
Applying the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and later cases, the court determined that the requested sealing and redactions were warranted. The court specifically cited confidential business information and private personal financial and otherwise identifying information contained in the materials, as identified and justified by the parties in their motions.
Order
The court ordered that the filings at Docket Numbers 512, 517, 519–522, 532–533, 542–544, and 546–547 remain under seal. It approved the proposed redactions to the publicly accessible versions of filings at Docket Numbers 511, 523, 525–526, 528–529, 534–535, and 553–557. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Numbers 513, 530, 531, 538, and 552. The order did not rule on the merits of the pending summary-judgment motions or motion to amend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.