Range, Jr. v. 230 West 41st Street LLC
- Loretta Preska
- 1:17-cv-00149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Range v. 230 West 41st Street LLC, Judge Preska ordered redacted lease, business-finance, and personal-income information sealed from public filings.
The order affected Range, 230 West 41st Street LLC, Hat Trick Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza LLC, Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the case filings.
What happened
In Range, Jr. v. 230 West 41st Street LLC, the parties jointly asked the court to seal limited information in materials supporting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The case concerns alleged architectural barriers at a Domino’s store.
The requested redactions covered lease values for vacant floors and the store, Hat Trick Pizza’s private financial information, and Range’s personal income. The parties argued that the business information could cause financial harm or competitive disadvantage and that Range’s income was private and not important to deciding the case.
Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the redacted information sealed from the public docket. The order concerned access to court filings, not the merits of the underlying architectural-barriers dispute.
The detailed version
- Range, Jr. v. 230 West 41st Street LLC · No. 1:17-cv-00149
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 20, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested a pre-motion conference concerning their anticipated request to file certain information under seal. The defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting declarations and exhibits. The materials concerned a case involving alleged architectural barriers at a Domino’s store.
The proposed redactions covered three categories:
- Lease values for two vacant floors at the building and for the Domino’s store. The letter states that 230 West owns the building and that the store’s lease expires in
- 2. Hat Trick Pizza’s nonpublic financial information, including profits, losses, and the structure of its business.
- Range’s income, which the parties had designated confidential during his deposition under the court’s confidentiality order.
The letter states that the redactions were limited to the identified information and did not cover entire documents.
Legal standard
The parties relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits a court to protect a person or party from harm such as embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden when good cause is shown. Because the materials were submitted for consideration in connection with a summary-judgment motion, the letter treated them as judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access.
The applicable analysis weighs the strength of that presumption against competing interests, including privacy interests. The presumption is stronger for information that directly affects the court’s decision and weaker for information that is not relevant to the decision. The letter also cited authority recognizing that proprietary information whose disclosure could cause financial harm or competitive disadvantage may be sealed.
Parties’ arguments
The parties argued that the building’s lease values could harm 230 West commercially by revealing information about vacant space and the Domino’s lease. They argued that Hat Trick’s profits, losses, and financial structure were proprietary and commercially sensitive. They also argued that Range’s personal financial information was private, was not expected to directly affect the court’s decision, and would not advance a public interest if disclosed.
Ruling
Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the identified redacted information sealed from the public docket. The ruling addressed confidentiality and public access to filings; it did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion or the underlying architectural-barriers claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.