Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-05943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality, Judge Furman temporarily granted sealing while defendants justify redactions before deciding public access.
The order affected Chloe, the defendants, the court filings at issue, and the public’s access to materials submitted with the summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality, Chloe opposed defendants’ request to keep parts of her summary-judgment opposition and supporting exhibits from the public. The disputed materials included emails and testimony containing insulting descriptions of Chloe and an older valuation of CCSW LLC.
Chloe argued that possible embarrassment, negative publicity, and claimed business confidentiality were not enough to overcome the public’s right to see documents used in summary-judgment proceedings. She also argued that the materials were relevant to whether defendants acted in good faith and that the valuation was too old to be competitively sensitive.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and ordered defendants to submit support for sealing within two days.
The detailed version
- Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05943
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
The court addressed a dispute over public access to materials filed in connection with defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Chloe’s opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment. Chloe’s counsel said defendants had designated several exhibits to the declaration of Patrick M. Arenz as confidential and objected to their public filing. The identified materials included portions of emails and deposition testimony concerning terms defendants’ principals allegedly used to describe Chloe, as well as a March 2017 valuation of CCSW LLC, identified as BCHG LLC’s predecessor company.
Chloe opposed sealing and argued that the materials were relevant to a central dispute. According to the filing, Chloe’s request for summary judgment sought a declaration that the NFL Agreement was terminated, while defendants contended that they had acted in “good faith.” Chloe argued that the public should therefore be able to see evidence relevant to defendants’ stated intent. She also argued that embarrassment and possible negative publicity were insufficient reasons for sealing and that the nearly three-year-old valuation was no longer competitively sensitive.
Court’s Action
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The court ordered defendants to submit any letter supporting sealing or redaction within two days and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 145.
Effect of the Order
This order did not decide whether the disputed materials would ultimately remain sealed, be redacted, or become public. It also did not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment motions. The materials’ then-current viewing level was stated to be “Selected Parties.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.