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 Frank Brunckhorst III v. Eric Bischoff, Judge Cronan approved redactions and ordered five documents unsealed with those redactions.
The Trustees, Frank Brunckhorst III, Eric Bischoff, and members of the public seeking access to the five documents.
What happened
In Frank Brunckhorst III, individually and as trustee of The Frank Brunckhorst III 2001 Trust v. Eric Bischoff et al., the court reviewed proposed redactions to five documents it had planned to make public. The documents were central to the court’s decisions on the parties’ requests for judgment without a trial.
The Trustees asked to redact limited excerpts from the Barbara 2010 Trust Agreement, Irrevocability Agreement, Death Appointment, Income Assignment, and Firm Memo. Frank Brunckhorst III and Eric Bischoff did not object to the request.
Judge John P. Cronan ruled that the proposed redactions were justified, ordered the five documents unsealed with the redactions attached to the Trustees’ motion, and directed the Clerk to close Docket Number 593.
The detailed version
- Frank Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Nov. 19, 2025
Background
On November 3, 2025, the Court invited the parties to propose redactions to six documents that it intended to unseal because they were central to its adjudication of the parties’ summary judgment motions. The Trustees, without objection from Frank Brunckhorst III and Eric Bischoff, moved to redact limited excerpts from five documents:
- the Barbara 2010 Trust Agreement; - the Irrevocability Agreement; - the Death Appointment; - the Income Assignment; and - the Firm Memo.
Ruling
The Court determined that the requested redactions were warranted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions, for reasons it had previously explained during the litigation. The Court therefore ordered the five documents unsealed with the requested redactions attached as exhibits to the Trustees’ motion. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 593.
The Court additionally stated that page 2 of the Income Assignment would be redacted below the word “Accepted,” consistent with the Trustees’ other proposed redactions.
Classification
This was a procedural order concerning access to court documents and redactions. It did not decide the underlying claims or the parties’ summary judgment motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.