MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V.
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-05860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In MN Theaters v. Grupo Cinemex, Judge Castel’s materials show a sealing order, but not a ruling on the later request to unseal the case.
MN Theaters 2006 LLC and Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V. were affected by the order sealing the case and its filings; public access to the court record was also affected. The provided text does not show the result of MN Theaters’ later request to unseal.
What happened
MN Theaters 2006 LLC asked the Southern District of New York to let it begin its case under seal because it was seeking an order temporarily attaching property without advance notice to Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V.
The court granted the temporary attachment order on July 30, 2020, and MN Theaters said it served that order on Grupo Cinemex on August 3. MN Theaters then asked to make the case and previously sealed filings public, stating that Grupo Cinemex had not requested continued sealing or redactions.
The provided materials include a July 27 order granting the motion to seal and sealing the case and listed filings, but they do not show whether Judge Castel granted or denied the later request to unseal. Judge Castel is the judge identified for the case.
The detailed version
- MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V. · No. 1:20-cv-05860
- P. Castel
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
The supplied materials consist primarily of an August 21, 2020 letter from MN Theaters’ counsel and a July 27, 2020 sealing order. MN Theaters sought permission to commence the action temporarily under seal while pursuing an order for attachment without advance notice to the defendant. The letter states that this procedure was based on New York’s attachment law, made available through Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On July 27, 2020, the court ordered the case sealed in its entirety. The sealing order covered the motion to seal, the complaint and exhibits, the civil cover sheet, the proposed summons, a required corporate disclosure statement, the proposed attachment and discovery order, supporting legal papers and declarations, and all future filings by the parties or the court.
Later Request to Unseal
The July 27 order required MN Theaters to seek permission to unseal the case and all documents within fourteen business days after the court ruled on the attachment motion and, if the motion was granted, after the attachment order was served on Grupo Cinemex. The letter states that the court granted the attachment motion on July 30 and that MN Theaters served the order on August 3.
MN Theaters’ August 21 letter asks the court to unseal the action, publicly file the documents previously filed under seal, and permit future filings to be public. It argues that the reason for sealing had ended and that public access should now outweigh competing concerns. The letter also states that Grupo Cinemex received copies of the relevant filings but had not asked the court to keep any material sealed or to redact it.
Ruling and Scope of the Provided Text
The July 27 sealing order expressly states that the motion to seal was “GRANTED.” The provided text does not include an order ruling on MN Theaters’ later request to unseal. Accordingly, the materials establish the grant of the sealing motion but do not establish whether the later unsealing request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved by Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.