Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-09011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman temporarily granted Sotheby’s filing request and deferred the final sealing decision.
Sotheby’s, Sotheby’s, Inc., the plaintiffs who designated materials as confidential or filed them under seal, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby’s concerns Sotheby’s request to publicly file a redacted letter while filing the full letter and exhibits under seal. The documents included material that the plaintiffs had designated as confidential or previously filed under seal.
Sotheby’s argued that the documents were judicial documents with a strong presumption of public access, and that no countervailing interest justified keeping them sealed. It also stated that the documents and information had already been made available to various government authorities.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion at ECF No. 262, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion, and stated that the court would decide whether sealing was proper when ruling on the underlying motions.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Defendants Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc., collectively called “Sotheby’s,” asked the court for permission to publicly file a redacted version of Sotheby’s April 21, 2021 letter. Sotheby’s also proposed filing an unredacted version of the letter and its exhibits under seal, with slip sheets replacing the public exhibits.
The request relied on the court’s individual rules and practices and on paragraph 4.5 of the parties’ amended protective order. Sotheby’s said that the letter and exhibits quoted, referred to, or contained documents that the plaintiffs had designated as confidential under the protective order or had previously filed under seal at ECF No. 252.
Arguments about public access
Sotheby’s argued that the materials were “judicial documents,” meaning documents relevant to the court’s decision, and therefore carried a strong presumption of public access. It argued that this presumption was not overcome by any opposing interest in keeping the materials sealed. Sotheby’s also stated that the exhibits and information in the letter had already been made available to various government authorities.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the motion at ECF No. 262 was granted temporarily. The court stated that it would address whether sealing was proper when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 262. The opinion text does not state a final ruling on whether the materials should remain sealed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.