Koh v. Koo
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-06639
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Koh v. Koo, Judge Furman granted an unopposed request to limit public access to sensitive portions of a duplicated exhibit.
Defendant Brian Koo, Plaintiff Koh, the other parties, the Court, and members of the public seeking access to the specified docket filings.
What happened
In Koh v. Koo, Defendant Brian Koo asked the court to restrict access to portions of Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff Koh’s affidavit supporting a requested temporary restraining order. The exhibit appeared twice on the docket because it had been re-filed, and the plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The request concerned confidential business information and highly sensitive personal and financial information, including commercial information about third parties. The filing also included a proposed redacted version.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. He directed the Clerk to make ECF Nos. 1-4 and 4-3 viewable only by the parties and the Court, and directed that ECF No. 13 be terminated.
The detailed version
- Koh v. Koo · No. 1:22-cv-06639
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 19, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns an unopposed application by Defendant Brian Koo to seal portions of Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff Koh’s affidavit supporting a requested temporary restraining order. Because the plaintiffs had to re-file the document, Exhibit 2 appeared twice on the docket, at ECF Nos. 1-4 and 4-3.
Request and stated basis
Koo requested that the specified portions of Exhibit 2 be sealed to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information and highly sensitive personal and financial information, including commercial information concerning third parties. The filing stated that a proposed redacted version was submitted at the same time. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The opinion recognized a presumption of public access to judicial documents but explained that the presumption is not absolute and must be balanced against competing considerations. It cited the need to protect sensitive personal, financial, and other confidential information.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. The Clerk was directed to modify ECF Nos. 1-4 and 4-3 so that they would be viewable only by the parties and the Court. The Court also directed the termination of ECF No. 13. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute or the requested temporary restraining order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.