FCS Advisors, LLC v. Theia Group, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-06995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In FCS Advisors v. Theia Group, Judge Castel’s record shows a request, not a court ruling, about sealing personal email information.
Nonparty Stephen Buscher, the receiver, the parties and counsel involved in the receiver’s motion, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
FCS Advisors, LLC v. Theia Group, Inc. concerns a request by nonparty Stephen Buscher to temporarily seal materials connected with the receiver’s request to reject certain contracts and leases. The submitted document is a letter from Buscher’s lawyer to the court.
Buscher asked to redact and seal only his personal email address in his consulting agreement with Theia Group, Inc. He otherwise did not oppose publicly filing the agreement and his limited objection. He also asked to temporarily seal the agreement and objection so the receiver could state whether additional information should be protected.
The submitted text does not show a ruling on the request. Judge P. Kevin Castel is identified as the recipient of the letter, but the text does not state that the request was granted, denied, or otherwise decided.
The detailed version
- FCS Advisors, LLC v. Theia Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06995
- P. Castel
- Jan. 5, 2022
Document and context
The submitted text is a letter from Michael J. Barrie, counsel for nonparty Stephen Buscher, to Judge P. Kevin Castel. The letter concerns materials related to court-appointed receiver Michael Fuqua’s motion to reject certain executory contracts and unexpired leases. The text refers to the motion and related filings as docket entries 127, 128, and 129.
Requested sealing and redaction
Buscher’s planned limited objection would attach and quote from his consulting agreement with Theia Group, Inc. The letter says the agreement identifies its contents as proprietary information and restricts disclosure of its terms. Buscher requested permission to redact and seal his personal email address, describing it as personal identifying and private information. He otherwise did not oppose public filing of the consulting agreement or the objection.
The letter also requested provisional sealing of the consulting agreement and the objection containing quotations from it. According to the letter, this would give the receiver an opportunity to take a position on whether information beyond Buscher’s personal email address should remain nonpublic, without delaying the receiver’s motion. Buscher stated that he sought protection for his email address regardless of the receiver’s position on broader sealing.
Legal basis asserted
The letter relied on the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the need to balance that presumption against countervailing interests, including privacy. It argued that protecting Buscher’s personal email address was narrowly tailored, unrelated to the court’s adjudication of the receiver’s motion, and consistent with examples of redacting personally identifying information.
Disposition
The submitted text does not contain a court order or ruling on the request. It identifies Judge P. Kevin Castel as the letter’s recipient but does not state that he granted, denied, or otherwise decided the sealing or redaction request. The available text therefore does not establish the court’s disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.