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 temporarily granted Sotheby’s motion to seal materials connected to summary-judgment filings.
Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc., which received temporary permission to file the identified materials under seal or with redactions; the materials also concern plaintiffs, non-party Sanford Heller, Sotheby’s employees, clients, and others whose confidential information may appear in them.
What happened
Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby’s concerns Sotheby’s request to file redacted versions of several summary-judgment documents and exhibits. The requested redactions covered confidential information, including client names, artwork collections, employee compensation, internal policies, and commission information.
Sotheby’s also asked to file sealed versions of two exhibits using slip sheets in the public record. It said some materials were designated confidential by a non-party and that other information was private, proprietary, or commercially sensitive.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal and said it would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 478.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- June 17, 2022
Background
Defendants Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc., collectively called “Sotheby’s” in the opinion, asked for permission to file public versions of certain documents with redactions. The request concerned Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 to a June 16, 2022 declaration; Sotheby’s reply memorandum supporting its motion for summary judgment; and Sotheby’s responses to plaintiffs’ supplemental statements of material facts.
Sotheby’s also requested permission to file slip sheets instead of Exhibits 9 and 10 in the public record while filing unredacted versions under seal. According to the request, those two exhibits had been designated confidential by non-party Sanford Heller under the protective order.
Requested Redactions
The proposed redactions included quotations from the two confidential exhibits, employee compensation information, a quotation from an internal Sotheby’s policy, and information about Sotheby’s commissions. Sotheby’s described this information as private, proprietary, commercially sensitive, or competitively sensitive.
The proposed redactions to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 involved the names of Sotheby’s clients and the artworks in those clients’ collections. Sotheby’s said it was contractually obligated to keep the information confidential and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also stated that the client identities were not relevant to the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. It stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The order did not make a final determination about continued sealing or redaction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 478. The order was entered by Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.