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.; Eric Bischoff v. Frank Brunckhorst III, individually and in his capacity as trustee of The Frank Brunckhorst III 2001 Trust et al.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frank Brunckhorst III v. Eric Bischoff, Judge Cronan set redaction procedures for sealed rulings and a transcript, and closed three docket entries.
The parties in the Frank Brunckhorst III, Eric Bischoff, and related trust and estate claims, including the Trustees and crossclaim parties.
What happened
In Frank Brunckhorst III v. Eric Bischoff and related claims, the court said it had issued sealed opinions on a motion to amend and the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
The parties were ordered to submit proposed redactions for those opinions and for the sealed transcript of the September 8, 2025 oral argument by October 7, 2025. They must also submit a joint letter explaining why the transcript redactions are justified. The letters may be filed under seal.
Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk to close Docket Numbers 509, 516, and 518. This order does not state the court’s rulings on the motion to amend or the summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Frank Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Sept. 30, 2025
What the Order Addresses
The order states that the court issued two opinions and orders under seal: one addressing the Trustees’ motion to amend, and one addressing the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The text provided does not disclose the substance or outcome of those opinions.
Redactions and Transcript
The parties were directed to submit proposed redactions in a joint letter by October 7, 2025. The same deadline applies to proposed redactions to the transcript of the September 8, 2025 oral argument, which was filed under seal at Docket Number 573. The parties must also address in their joint letter why the proposed transcript redactions are justified under Lugosch v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). They must submit one set of proposed redactions, while explaining any disagreements in the joint letter. The joint letters may be filed under seal.
Disposition
The Clerk was directed to close Docket Numbers 509, 516, and 518. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order. The order itself does not state how the court ruled on the motion to amend or the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.