Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC

Background

Chloe Coscarelli and three limited liability companies sued ESquared Hospitality LLC and BC Hospitality Group LLC. The case included claims that had been sent to arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on the merits, two awards concerning attorneys’ fees, and a Complete Final Award concerning attorneys’ fees. The parties then filed cross-motions to confirm or vacate the awards. Those motions remained under advisement when the court considered the requests to unseal documents.

The defendants had obtained temporary orders sealing various documents, including the arbitration awards. The plaintiffs repeatedly objected and renewed their request to unseal the awards and other materials. The court’s ruling addressed public access to those documents, not the parties’ underlying cross-motions to confirm or vacate the awards.

Legal Standard

The court applied the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. It explained that courts must determine whether the material is a judicial document, assess the strength of the presumption of public access, and balance that presumption against interests supporting secrecy, such as privacy or judicial efficiency. The party seeking continued secrecy bears the burden of showing that the interests favoring non-access outweigh public access.

Rulings

The court concluded that the arbitration awards were judicial documents because they directly affected the court’s consideration of the motions to confirm or vacate them. It found that the presumption of access was especially strong because the awards were central to what the court had been asked to decide. The defendants did not identify countervailing interests strong enough to overcome that presumption. The plaintiffs’ request to unseal the awards was therefore granted.

The court also ruled as follows:

- The defendants’ motions to seal or redact their memoranda supporting their motions to vacate, and the related portions of the plaintiffs’ memoranda, were denied. - The defendants’ motion to seal the arbitrator’s August 14, 2020 and August 27, 2020 Interim Orders was denied. - The defendants’ motions to seal their arbitration briefs and correspondence between counsel and the arbitrator were denied. - The defendants’ motion to seal corporate documents concerning BC Hospitality Group Inc. and portions of employee deposition transcripts was denied for failure to show that corporate privacy outweighed public access. That denial was without prejudice to a later request for narrowly tailored redactions. - The defendants’ motion to seal a one-page excerpt from Warren Valdmanis’s deposition transcript was denied because they did not identify an injury that disclosure would cause. - The court construed the plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 192 as a motion to unseal all exhibits filed at ECF No. 196. That motion was granted as unopposed, without prejudice to a later request for narrowly tailored redactions. - The plaintiffs’ motion to seal or redact references to their counsel’s billing rates was granted in part. The court allowed limited redactions of those rates but required ECF No. 212-5 to be publicly re-filed rather than sealed in full. - The court found no basis to keep ECF Nos. 228-3 and 228-4 sealed and directed that they be unsealed.

Order

Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk to unseal the specified documents, including the arbitration awards, memoranda, interim orders, arbitration briefs, correspondence, and other identified materials. For certain corporate documents, deposition materials, and exhibits filed at ECF No. 196, the parties had three business days to request redactions and explain the basis for them. If no timely request was made, those documents would be unsealed in their entirety. The plaintiffs were also directed to publicly re-file ECF No. 212-5 with limited redactions of counsel’s billing rates. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 238.