Gluck v. NorthStar Contracting Group, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-02038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gluck v. NorthStar, Judge Cave denied without prejudice the parties’ request to seal their settlement amount and paused discovery.
Yvette Gluck, Anthony M. Sandelli, NorthStar Contracting Group, Inc., and the parties' settlement and discovery schedules.
What happened
In Gluck v. NorthStar Contracting Group, Inc., the parties asked the court to keep the amount of their settlement confidential. The court said settlement information it must consider generally has a strong presumption of public access.
The court denied the sealing request without prejudice because the parties had not shown enough reason to keep the amount secret. It allowed them to renew the request with a proper showing of the need for confidentiality. The parties must file their settlement agreement for court approval by April 8, 2022.
Judge Sarah L. Cave also held the deadline for completing discovery in abeyance while the court considers the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to close the sealing motion.
The detailed version
- Gluck v. NorthStar Contracting Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02038
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 1, 2022
Ruling on Sealing Request
The parties asked to seal the amount of their settlement. The court denied that request without prejudice, meaning the parties may renew it. Judge Sarah L. Cave explained that, in cases requiring judicial review of a proposed settlement, there is a presumption that the proceedings and information the court must use— including the settlement amount—are publicly accessible. The parties had not provided a sufficient basis for confidentiality.
Next Steps
The parties may renew their request to seal the settlement amount if they make a proper showing of the need for confidentiality. They must file their settlement agreement for court approval by April 8, 2022. The deadline for completing all discovery is held in abeyance while the court considers the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close ECF No. 43, the sealing request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.