Desiste v. Sobande
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-06947
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Desiste v. Sobande, Judge Failla granted redactions of confidential business terms in a deposition transcript and ordered a replacement filing.
Defendant Solomon Sobande may redact specified confidential business terms from Exhibit 23; Plaintiff Bruce Desiste must replace the filed exhibit with the redacted version; the complete unredacted exhibit remains available only to the court and the parties; and the Clerk must terminate the pending motion at docket number 60.
What happened
Desiste v. Sobande involved Defendant Solomon Sobande’s request to redact portions of a deposition transcript filed in connection with his summary-judgment motion. The redacted material concerned financial and other business terms of Sobande’s agreement with Jahseh Dwayne Ricardo Onfroy, who was not a party to the case.
The request covered information that was already subject to a sealing order and was not relevant to the summary-judgment dispute. Sobande argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm, affect negotiations with clients, and reveal confidential financial information. Plaintiff Bruce Desiste’s counsel did not oppose the request.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed Desiste to replace the publicly filed copy of Exhibit 23 with the redacted version, noted that an unredacted copy was already filed under seal for access by the court and parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket number 60.
The detailed version
- Desiste v. Sobande · No. 1:20-cv-06947
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
Defendant Solomon Sobande asked the court to allow Plaintiff Bruce Desiste to replace a publicly filed copy of Exhibit 23 with a redacted version. Exhibit 23 was volume two of Sobande’s July 13, 2021, deposition transcript, filed with a declaration opposing Sobande’s motion for summary judgment. The requested redactions were at transcript pages 139:8–14, 172:8–21, and 173:1.
The redacted portions described specific contractual terms in Sobande’s January 28, 2017, agreement with Jahseh Dwayne Ricardo Onfroy, who was not a party to the action. The application stated that the same contract percentages had already been sealed under an earlier sealing order. Sobande’s counsel also stated that Desiste’s counsel did not oppose the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the three-part test used for sealing or redacting court filings: whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and whether competing interests outweigh that presumption.
The court concluded that the portions at issue had low importance to the judicial process because they concerned the business arrangement between Sobande and Onfroy, rather than Sobande’s alleged agreement with Desiste, which was relevant to the summary-judgment motion. The court also determined that the privacy and competitive interests supporting redaction outweighed public access. The information included financial terms and percentages that could affect Sobande’s relationships with clients, future negotiations, and competitors’ understanding of his compensation arrangements. The court also considered that the information related to a non-party.
Disposition
The court’s endorsed order states: “Application GRANTED.” It directed Desiste to replace the copy of Exhibit 23 filed at docket number 56-5 with the version redacted as described in Sobande’s papers. The court noted that a complete, unredacted copy had already been filed under seal and was visible only to the court and the parties. Judge Katherine Polk Failla also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket number 60.
This order addressed access to and redaction of a deposition exhibit. The provided text does not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.