Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2020

Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:18-cv-05943
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC, Judge Furman temporarily granted Defendants’ motion to seal materials related to arbitration motions, reserving a later decision.

Who this affects

ESquared Hospitality LLC, BC Hospitality Group LLC, and Chef Chloe LLC; the order also concerns materials involving non-parties.

What happened

In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC, Defendants ESquared Hospitality LLC and BC Hospitality Group LLC asked to temporarily seal materials supporting their opposition to Chef Chloe LLC’s request to confirm an arbitration award and their request to vacate it.

The requested materials included a legal memorandum, arbitration-hearing transcript excerpts, confidential corporate-transaction documents, and a deposition excerpt involving a non-party. Plaintiff opposed sealing, but the court temporarily granted the motion.

Judge Furman said the court would decide later whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when it ruled on the underlying motions. The Clerk was directed to terminate docket entry 183.

The detailed version

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

Case
Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05943
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
June 15, 2020

Background

Defendants ESquared Hospitality LLC and BC Hospitality Group LLC, formerly known as CCSW LLC, submitted a letter-motion seeking permission to file four categories of material under seal. The materials related to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff Chef Chloe LLC’s motion to confirm a partial final arbitration award and Defendants’ cross-motion to vacate that award.

The four categories were: (1) Defendants’ memorandum of law; (2) excerpts from the hearing transcript in the parallel arbitration; (3) confidential corporate agreements and other documents describing corporate transactions at issue in the arbitration; and (4) an excerpt from the deposition of Warren Valdmanis, whom the letter described as a non-party. Defendants argued that the materials contained information about the arbitration award, confidential corporate transactions, non-parties’ information, and commercially sensitive business matters. Plaintiff disagreed that the materials warranted sealing.

Ruling

The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or require redactions when ruling on the underlying motions. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 183. The order did not make a final determination about continued sealing or redaction and did not decide the underlying motions concerning the arbitration award.

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.