US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury
US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-06139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
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.
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
- US VC Partners GP LLC v. United States Department of the Treasury · No. 1:19-cv-06139
- George Daniels
- 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.