FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Hal Luftig Company, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-02768
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In FCP Entertainment Partners v. Hal Luftig Company, Judge Kaplan received a request to seal HLC tax returns, but the text contains no ruling.
FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC, Hal Luftig Company, Inc., Hal Luftig, and members of the public seeking access to the filed tax-return exhibit.
What happened
FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC asked the court to seal Exhibit 3 to a declaration supporting its request to confirm an arbitration award and opposing Hal Luftig’s request to vacate that award. The exhibit contains redacted tax returns from Hal Luftig Company, Inc.
FCP said Hal Luftig Company had marked the tax returns as confidential during the arbitration and that they contain the company’s confidential information. FCP also argued that tax returns generally receive special protection from public disclosure.
The letter was addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. The provided text records FCP’s sealing request but does not state that Judge Kaplan granted or denied it.
The detailed version
- FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Hal Luftig Company, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02768
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 15, 2022
Request
FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC filed a letter motion asking the court to accept under seal Exhibit 3 to a declaration by Frank C. Gilmore. FCP submitted the exhibit in support of its amended request to confirm an arbitration award and in opposition to Hal Luftig’s amended request to vacate that award. The letter also references a related case, Hal Luftig v. FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC, No. 22-CV-03697-LAK.
Basis for the Request
The exhibit is a copy of redacted tax returns belonging to Hal Luftig Company, Inc. FCP stated that the tax returns were an exhibit in the arbitration, that Hal Luftig Company applied the redactions before producing them, and that the company marked them as confidential during the arbitration. FCP argued that the tax returns contain confidential information, are not documents historically open to the press and public, and generally receive special protection from public disclosure.
FCP stated that it provided Exhibit 3 to counsel for Hal Luftig and Hal Luftig Company by email. The provided text is a letter motion and does not include an order resolving the request. It therefore does not state whether Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted or denied the request to seal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.