Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2022

Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:18-cv-09011
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman temporarily granted sealing of a contract while reserving a final decision.

Who this affects

Non-party Sanford Heller, Accent Delight International Ltd., Sotheby’s, and members of the public seeking access to the identified contract and related court filings.

What happened

Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby’s involved Sotheby’s request to seal documents filed with an underlying motion. Non-party Sanford Heller supported sealing Exhibit 29, a contract between him and Accent Delight containing confidential information about his professional dealings.

The court temporarily granted the application as to that document. It said it would decide later, when ruling on the underlying motion, whether to keep the document sealed in whole or in part.

Judge Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the docket entry for Sotheby’s sealing motion, ECF No. 420. The order did not make a final decision about continued sealing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 29, 2022

Background

Sotheby’s filed a motion to seal materials connected to an underlying motion. The materials included Exhibit 29 to the declaration of Mikhail Sazonov, which was a contract between non-party Sanford Heller and plaintiff Accent Delight International Ltd. Counsel for Heller stated that the contract contained confidential, non-public information about Heller’s professional dealings with a counterparty.

Heller asked the court to grant Sotheby’s sealing request to the extent it covered Exhibit 29 and the contract’s terms. The submission relied on decisions recognizing that the privacy interests of innocent third parties are important when courts balance the public’s presumptive right to access court records against competing concerns.

Ruling

The court temporarily granted the application. It stated that it would determine whether to maintain the identified document under seal, in whole or in part, when deciding the underlying motion. Thus, the order did not finally decide the extent or duration of sealing. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 420, Sotheby’s sealing motion.

Effect

The order temporarily protected the identified document from public access while postponing the final sealing decision. The ruling affected the document and the privacy interests asserted by Sanford Heller, while preserving the court’s later decision about whether the document should remain sealed and to what extent.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.