Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-09011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman granted a request to keep two exhibits redacted and restricted public access to one.
Nonparty Yves Bouvier, the plaintiffs Accent Delight International Ltd. and Xitrans, Sotheby’s, and members of the public seeking access to the court exhibits.
What happened
In Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby’s, nonparty Yves Bouvier asked the court to keep two exhibits about art-sale terms in redacted form. One exhibit concerned a Modigliani sculpture and two other works, and included private and commercially sensitive information.
Bouvier argued that the information about the other works, his residential address, account numbers, a Sotheby’s employee’s signature, and negotiated commercial terms was unrelated to the pending summary-judgment motion and should not be public. He also asked the court to remove one exhibit that had been filed without redactions.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. He concluded that the two documents should remain redacted, directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 423, and restricted access to ECF No. 417-25 to court users and the parties.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Nonparty Yves Bouvier asked the court to maintain redactions in Exhibit 26 to the declaration of Daniel J. Kornstein and to require the plaintiffs to refile Exhibit 25 in redacted form. Both exhibits concerned terms of Bouvier’s sale of a Modigliani sculpture at a Sotheby’s auction. Exhibit 26 also discussed two other works, contained Bouvier’s residential address and account numbers, and included the signature of a Sotheby’s employee.
Bouvier also sought redactions for confidential commercial terms, including guarantees, the allocation of the buyer’s premium, overage, the share of the hammer price, payment and delivery terms, and various fees. He argued that this information was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion and that disclosure could harm his competitive position. The plaintiffs had filed Exhibit 25 without the requested redactions.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three-part test for sealing court documents described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The opinion states that the two identified documents should be maintained in redacted form. It does not provide a separate, detailed explanation for each category of information.
Disposition
The application was granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 423 and to restrict access to ECF No. 417-25 to court users and the parties. The order therefore kept the two documents in redacted form and limited public access to Exhibit 25.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.