Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-05943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC, Judge Furman temporarily granted Defendants’ motion to seal materials related to arbitration motions, reserving a later decision.
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
- Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05943
- Jesse Furman
- 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Idev. PLC
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Mar 2021
- Baker Hughesv. International Engineering
- NEVILLE MCFARLANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated…Mar 2021
- Ahmadv. Day
- Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated…Dec 2020