Luftig v. FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-03697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Luftig v. FCP Entertainment Partners, FCP asked Judge Kaplan to seal redacted tax returns submitted in related arbitration proceedings.
FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC and Hal Luftig Company, Inc., whose redacted tax returns were the subject of the sealing request; the filing also concerned Hal Luftig’s petition to vacate an arbitration award.
What happened
In Luftig v. FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC, FCP filed a letter asking the court to accept Exhibit 3 to a declaration under seal. The exhibit was submitted in support of FCP’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and against Hal Luftig’s petition to vacate that award.
Exhibit 3 contained redacted tax returns belonging to Hal Luftig Company, Inc. FCP said the company had applied the redactions before producing the returns during arbitration, marked them confidential, and sought sealing because the returns contained confidential information and were not ordinarily open to the public.
The letter was addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. The provided text contains FCP’s request but does not include a court ruling on whether the exhibit would be sealed.
The detailed version
- Luftig v. FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03697
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 15, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided document is a letter motion by FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC, seeking permission to file an exhibit under seal. It concerns related proceedings involving FCP’s amended petition to confirm an arbitration award and Hal Luftig’s amended petition to vacate the award.
Requested sealing
FCP asked the court to accept under seal Exhibit 3 to the June 13, 2022 declaration of Frank C. Gilmore. The exhibit was a copy of redacted tax returns of Hal Luftig Company, Inc. FCP stated that the tax returns had been an exhibit in the underlying arbitration, that Hal Luftig Company, Inc. had applied the redactions before producing them to FCP, and that the company had marked the returns confidential during the arbitration.
FCP argued that the returns contained confidential information and were not documents historically open to the press and general public. The letter cited cases discussing public access to court records and the protection generally given to tax returns.
What the document does not show
The provided text is FCP’s request to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, not an order deciding the request. It does not state that the court granted or denied sealing, and it does not provide a ruling on either arbitration petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.