The Estate of Michael Heiser v. Redacted 3rd party garnishee
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-11078
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
The Estate of Michael Heiser v. [REDACTED THIRD PARTY GARNISHEE]: Judge Furman reserved ruling on sealing, extended the answer deadline, and ordered service.
The petitioners, the redacted respondent, OFAC, and counsel for the judgment debtors were affected by the sealing, service, answer-deadline, and case-management directives.
What happened
In The Estate of Michael Heiser v. [REDACTED THIRD PARTY GARNISHEE], the court addressed whether documents filed in the case should remain sealed, meaning unavailable to the public. The parties did not object to unsealing the record.
The court reserved judgment until the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control had an opportunity to explain whether the documents should remain sealed or be filed in redacted form. The court also extended the respondent’s deadline to answer to January 29, 2020.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to submit a joint letter about how the case should proceed after the answer is filed, and ordered the petitioners to serve the order on OFAC, the respondent, and counsel for the judgment debtors. If OFAC did not submit a letter by December 23, 2019, the court said it would unseal all previously filed documents.
The detailed version
- The Estate of Michael Heiser v. Redacted 3rd party garnishee · No. 1:19-cv-11078
- Loretta Preska
- Dec. 13, 2019
Background
At a December 13, 2019 conference, the court considered whether documents filed in the case should continue to be kept under seal. The parties had no objection to unsealing the record in its entirety. The court also addressed the respondent’s deadline to answer.
Court’s action
The court reserved judgment on continued sealing until the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) could address the issue. It directed OFAC to submit a letter by December 23, 2019, explaining why continued sealing or redaction would be consistent with the presumption that court records are publicly accessible. If OFAC believed its letter should itself be sealed or redacted, the court directed it to follow the procedures in the court’s individual rules and practices. In the absence of an OFAC letter, the court stated that it would enter an order unsealing all previously filed documents.
The court extended the respondent’s deadline to answer to January 29, 2020. Within one week after the answer was filed, the parties were required to submit a joint letter describing their views on how the litigation should proceed and whether the court should schedule a conference. The petitioners were ordered to serve the order on OFAC, the respondent, and counsel for the judgment debtors by email or overnight courier within one business day, and to file proof of service within two business days, if appropriate under seal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.