Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 20, 2022

Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-05482
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Beyond Bespoke Tailors v. Barchiesi, Judge Broderick granted a request to seal three exhibits containing confidential account information.

Who this affects

The parties and the public’s access to Exhibits 7, 9, and 11 filed at Document 140. Those documents were ordered to be viewable only by the court and the parties.

What happened

In Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi, Defendant James R. Barchiesi asked the court to seal Exhibits 7, 9, and 11 filed at Document 140. The request cited confidential information and a protective order entered in the case.

The letter stated that an account number had accidentally not been redacted from Exhibit 7, while Exhibits 9 and 11 had been cleared of identifying account information. The defendant argued that sealing the three exhibits was narrowly tailored to protect the parties’ confidentiality interests.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application. He directed the Clerk of Court to seal Documents 140-7, 140-9, and 140-11 so that they would be viewable only by the court and the parties.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi · No. 1:20-cv-05482
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Sept. 20, 2022

Background

Defendant James R. Barchiesi, through counsel, submitted a letter application asking the court to seal Exhibits 7, 9, and 11 filed at Document 140. The application stated that the materials were marked confidential and covered by the parties’ March 8, 2021 protective order.

The application explained that an account number had apparently not been redacted from Exhibit 7 through inadvertence or mistake. It stated that Exhibits 9 and 11 had been cleared of identifying account information. The defendant argued that sealing the exhibits was narrowly tailored to protect the parties’ confidentiality interests. The application also acknowledged that party consent or a confidentiality agreement alone does not automatically overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents.

Ruling

The court granted the application. Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the Clerk of Court to seal Documents 140-7, 140-9, and 140-11 so that they would be viewable only by the court and the parties. The opinion addressed access to these exhibits and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.