Surrey Propco LLC v. Denihan Ownership Company, LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-08616
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Surrey Propco v. Denihan, defense counsel asked to seal discovery materials, but the text contains no ruling by Judge Kaplan.
Denihan Ownership Company, LLC’s request to seal two discovery exhibits and redact related portions of its motion; Surrey Propco LLC’s confidentiality designations are also at issue.
What happened
Surrey Propco LLC v. Denihan Ownership Company, LLC concerns Denihan’s request to file two discovery exhibits under seal and redact related portions of its court filings. The request was based on Surrey Propco LLC’s designation of the materials as highly confidential and for attorneys’ eyes only.
The requested materials were a signed sale-purchase agreement and a draft hotel-management-agreement term sheet. Denihan said it was seeking permission to seal them only because a proposed confidentiality order restricted public disclosure, and it said Surrey Propco would explain why continued sealing was needed.
The provided text is a letter from defense counsel to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, not a ruling. It does not show whether the request to seal or redact was granted, denied, or otherwise decided.
The detailed version
- Surrey Propco LLC v. Denihan Ownership Company, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-08616
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 27, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter from counsel for defendant Denihan Ownership Company, LLC to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It asks for permission to file two exhibits under seal and to redact portions of Denihan’s motion that quote or summarize those exhibits. The letter refers to Denihan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and a partial motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but the provided text does not include the court’s decision on those motions.
Materials at issue
Denihan sought to seal:
- Exhibit 2, a fully executed December 3, 2020 sale-purchase agreement signed by Surrey Realty Associates, LLC and Surrey Propco LLC, excluding the agreement’s exhibits; and - Exhibit 5, a draft document titled “TERM SHEET FOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SURREY NEW YORK,” marked “DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION.”
The letter says Surrey Propco produced both documents in discovery and designated them “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Denihan also proposed redacting only portions of its motion that quoted or summarized the documents.
Parties’ positions and sealing standards cited
Denihan said it was requesting permission to seal solely to comply with the parties’ proposed confidentiality and protective order. That proposed order stated that the court had not yet made any finding about the confidentiality of discovery materials and retained discretion over whether to treat them confidentially.
The letter cited decisions stating that sealing may be appropriate when countervailing factors or higher values outweigh the usual presumption of public access, and that the party seeking to seal materials bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified. Denihan said it had asked Surrey Propco whether it would continue seeking protection for the materials. Surrey Propco removed its confidentiality designation from two other exhibits but continued to designate Exhibits 2 and 5 as attorneys’-eyes-only materials. Denihan said Surrey Propco’s counsel would file a separate letter explaining the need for sealing or redaction.
Disposition
No ruling or other court disposition appears in the provided text. Accordingly, the text does not establish whether Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted, denied, or otherwise resolved Denihan’s request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.