Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Nov. 13, 2019

US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury

Full caption

US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:19-cv-06139
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury, Judge Daniels received a request to redact and seal sensitive business information, but no ruling appears.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, their clients, other nonparties whose information may appear in the report, and the public’s access to the court record.

What happened

In US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury, the plaintiffs asked to file a redacted version of an annual report publicly and an unredacted version under seal.

The plaintiffs said the report contained confidential information, including bank account numbers, property values, investment holdings, and deal terms. They argued that disclosure could harm them, their clients, and other entities not involved in the case.

The provided text does not state how Judge George B. Daniels ruled on the request. It shows the request and references an “ORDERED” entry, but no specific grant, denial, or other disposition is included.

The detailed version

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

Case
US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury · No. 1:19-cv-06139
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Nov. 13, 2019

Background

The provided document is a letter submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs in connection with their reply supporting a motion for the return of allegedly unlawfully seized property. The letter concerns Exhibit 2 to Andrew Intrater’s declaration: an Annual Report of Blocked Property that the plaintiffs prepared on September 27, 2019, for reporting obligations to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is identified as a defendant.

Request

The plaintiffs requested permission to file a redacted version of Exhibit 2 on the public docket and an unredacted version under seal. They stated that the report contains an accounting and locations of blocked property, bank account numbers, estimated or actual values of specific property, holdings by particular entities in investments, and investment deal terms. They argued that disclosure could cause harm to the plaintiffs, their clients, and other entities that are not parties to the litigation.

The letter acknowledged the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible but argued that the risk of competitive or other harm outweighed the limited public interest in access to the information. It cited the court’s authority to protect confidential commercial information for good cause.

Disposition

The provided text does not include a specific ruling on the request. Although the document contains an “ORDERED” notation and identifies Judge George B. Daniels, it does not say that the request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. No disposition can be determined from the text provided.

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.