EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-08076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, Judge Moses granted EFCG’s sealing application, keeping Docket 120 under seal.
EFCG, Inc.; the defendants; the non-parties Mr. Zofnass and Daniel Babitz; and the public’s access to Docket 120.
What happened
EFCG, Inc. asked the court for permission to file a pre-motion letter in redacted form and to seal an exhibit to that letter. The materials concerned a non-party’s private health information and EFCG’s confidential internal business operations.
EFCG also stated that the defendants and a non-party, Daniel Babitz, had previously designated the documents as confidential during their document productions. EFCG publicly filed the letter in proposed redacted form and filed the unredacted letter under seal.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application for substantially the reasons stated in the request and ordered that Docket 120 remain under seal.
The detailed version
- EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08076
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 2, 2020
Background
EFCG, Inc. sought permission to restrict public access to filings in the case. The request concerned portions of a pre-motion letter and an exhibit to that letter. EFCG said the materials discussed the private and sensitive health information of a non-party, Mr. Zofnass, and EFCG’s confidential internal business operations.
Application
EFCG asked to file the pre-motion letter in redacted form and to file the exhibit under seal. EFCG also stated that the defendants and a non-party, Daniel Babitz, had previously designated the documents as confidential during their productions. The letter was publicly filed in proposed redacted form, while an unredacted copy was filed under seal.
Ruling
The court granted the application for substantially the reasons stated in it. Judge Barbara Moses ordered that Docket 120 remain under seal. The order did not state that the materials were permanently sealed or address any other issue in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.