Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Judge Cronan ordered letters and a conference about redactions in the complaint.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and their counsel are affected by the briefing, conference, and service requirements. The order also concerns public access to the redacted complaint.
What happened
Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff concerns a complaint filed with redactions under an earlier order by Judge Loretta A. Preska. The opinion does not explain what information was redacted or the claims in the complaint.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file a letter by June 3, 2021, explaining whether the public version of the complaint should remain redacted. Defendants could file their own letters by June 8, and the court scheduled a telephone conference for June 10 to discuss the issue. The plaintiff also had to serve the defendants with the order and file proof of service.
Judge John P. Cronan issued this procedural order. It did not decide whether the redactions should remain and did not rule on the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- May 28, 2021
Background
The plaintiff, Frank Brunckhorst III, filed the complaint individually and as trustee of the Frank Brunckhorst III 2001 Trust. The complaint was filed with redactions under an order issued by Judge Loretta A. Preska while serving as the Part 1 Judge. The order refers to an earlier matter, 20-mc-432, Docket 4, but does not describe the redacted information or the underlying claims.
Orders
The court directed the plaintiff to file, by June 3, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages explaining whether the public version of the complaint should remain redacted. The court directed the plaintiff to address Section 4.A-B of its Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, as well as Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), and any other controlling authority. Any defendant wishing to address the issue could file a letter of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
The court scheduled a telephone conference for June 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to address the redaction issue. It also ordered the plaintiff to serve the defendants with a copy of the order by overnight courier within two business days and to file proof of service within two business days after service.
Disposition
The court issued an order setting briefing and a conference concerning whether the complaint's public version should remain redacted. It did not decide that question or reach the merits of the case. The order is therefore a procedural order. The opinion is dated May 27, 2021; the supplied case information lists May 28, 2021 as the filing date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.