Knopf v. Esposito
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:17-cv-05833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Knopf v. Esposito, Judge Cote required Frank Esposito to submit an unredacted document under seal before deciding his redaction request.
Frank Esposito and Esposito, PLLC, whose proposed public filing was subject to the court’s sealing and redaction requirements; the excerpt does not state the effect on the other parties.
What happened
Knopf v. Esposito involved a request to publicly file a letter with redactions.
Frank Esposito also asked the court to stay the case while a related proceeding continued, or alternatively to extend discovery, but the order excerpt does not state a ruling on those requests.
Judge Cote directed Mr. Esposito to file the unredacted document under seal with proposed redactions highlighted by February 1, or the request to file the letter with redactions would be denied.
The detailed version
- Knopf v. Esposito · No. 1:17-cv-05833
- Sarah Netburn
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
Frank Esposito, writing for Esposito, PLLC, asked the court to allow a letter to be filed publicly with redactions. The letter also requested a stay of the case while a parallel proceeding concluded and, alternatively, more time for discovery and a deposition. The excerpt does not show a ruling on those additional requests.
Redaction Request
The court’s Individual Practices required a party seeking approval to redact information from a document for public filing to electronically file an unredacted copy under seal, with the proposed redactions highlighted. The request referred to the court’s January 25, 2021 order concerning identical issues and to a motion by Daniel Horwitz.
Ruling
Judge Denise L. Cote directed Mr. Esposito to file the unredacted document under seal by February 1, with the proposed redactions highlighted. The court stated that if he did not do so, the motion to publicly file the attached letter with redactions would be denied. The excerpt therefore shows a filing directive and a conditional consequence, not a final grant or denial of the redaction request. It does not state a disposition of the request to stay the case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.