Golub Capital LLC v. NB Alternatives Advisers LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-03991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Golub Capital v. NB Alternatives, Judge Liman denied defendants’ motion to seal without prejudice and ordered two documents unsealed.
The defendants, NB Alternatives Advisers LLC and Neuberger Berman Group LLC, were affected by the denial of their sealing request and the order unsealing two documents. The ruling also concerned public access to documents filed with the court.
What happened
Golub Capital LLC v. NB Alternatives Advisers LLC involved the defendants’ request to keep arbitral documents, an Investment Agreement, and a New York Affidavit from public view.
The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice. It ordered two arbitral documents unsealed because they were court documents covered by the public-access rule. The defendants could file a revised motion seeking limited redactions to the Investment Agreement and New York Affidavit; otherwise, those documents would also be unsealed.
Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on May 17, 2021, and directed the defendants to submit any revised motion by 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2021.
The detailed version
- Golub Capital LLC v. NB Alternatives Advisers LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03991
- Lewis Liman
- May 17, 2021
Background
The defendants asked the court to seal several documents connected to the dispute: two arbitral documents at Docket Nos. 21-10 and 21-11, an Investment Agreement at Docket No. 20-2, and a New York Affidavit at Docket No. 20-3.
Court’s reasoning
Judge Liman explained that the arbitral documents were judicial documents, meaning documents filed with the court that are subject to a presumption of public access. The fact that arbitration proceedings are not public did not, by itself, justify sealing the documents. The Investment Agreement and New York Affidavit also contained information that did not meet the standard for sealing. The court allowed the defendants to seek permission to redact only information protected under the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Disposition
The defendants’ motion to seal was denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to unseal Docket Nos. 21-10 and 21-11. The defendants were permitted to file a revised motion by 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2021, limited to appropriate redactions of the Investment Agreement and New York Affidavit. If no revised motion was filed, the court stated that it would direct those documents to be unsealed as well.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.