Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-09011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman granted Sotheby’s modified motion to keep certain client-identifying material redacted.
Sotheby’s, the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to the court filings were affected. The order permits redaction of specified client-identifying information and personal contact information while leaving the treatment of some remaining documents for later decision.
What happened
In Accent Delight International Ltd. et al. v. Sotheby’s et al., Sotheby’s asked to keep limited portions of filings from public view because they identified or described Sotheby’s clients and contained other sensitive information.
Sotheby’s changed its request after the plaintiffs opposed the broader sealing request. It sought redactions for client-identifying information in an expert report and deposition transcript, and addressed personal contact information appearing in two reports. The parties also took positions on redacting or publicly filing other documents.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Sotheby’s motion as modified. He directed Sotheby’s to refile the relevant documents with the approved redactions, including the specified address and phone numbers, and said the court would later decide whether remaining documents should stay redacted when ruling on the underlying motions.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
Sotheby’s moved to keep certain filings sealed or redacted. The filings included an expert report by Mr. Sainty, portions of his deposition transcript, and other materials connected with Sotheby’s expert-exclusion motions. The letter stated that the parties had used a conservative approach toward documents previously designated confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only.
Modified Request
After the plaintiffs opposed the broader request, Sotheby’s narrowed its request. It sought redactions for portions of Mr. Sainty’s report and deposition that named one Sotheby’s client or substantively described another client in a way that could reveal that client’s identity. Sotheby’s argued that the client identities were irrelevant to Mr. Sainty’s opinion and to the claims and defenses, and that he could give his opinion without identifying the clients.
Sotheby’s did not oppose Mr. Heller’s request to keep certain transcript portions redacted. Counsel for Acquavella took no position on continued sealing of several identified documents, and Sotheby’s said it did not oppose publicly filing those documents. Sotheby’s also said it otherwise did not oppose unsealing its filings related to the expert-exclusion motions. As to a home address and two mobile phone numbers appearing in the Sainty and Wittman reports, Sotheby’s took no position on whether those details should be redacted.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Sotheby’s motion as modified in its letter. The court stated that it would evaluate whether the remaining documents should continue to be maintained in redacted form when deciding the underlying motions. The court directed Sotheby’s to refile the relevant documents by the stated deadline and to redact the specified address and phone numbers when doing so. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 369.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.