Koestler v. Shkreli
- Denise Cote
- 1:16-cv-07175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Koestler v. Shkreli, counsel asked Judge Cote to seal a receiver’s letter motion about Phoenixus shares; the provided text contains no court ruling.
Receiver Derek C. Abbott, Martin Shkreli, Phoenixus, potential purchasers of the Phoenixus shares, and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.
What happened
In Koestler v. Shkreli, counsel for Receiver Derek C. Abbott asked the court for permission to file a letter motion under seal. The receiver had been appointed to help enforce a judgment against Martin Shkreli, and the receiver identified Shkreli’s interest in Phoenixus stock as a potentially valuable asset.
The receiver said that discussions with possible buyers raised sensitive issues about Shkreli’s ownership of the stock and about Phoenixus. The receiver argued that keeping the letter motion from public view was necessary to protect the marketing process and Phoenixus’ operations, and that the requested protection was limited to those issues.
The provided material is a request addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a ruling by her. It does not show whether the court granted or denied permission to file the letter motion under seal.
The detailed version
- Koestler v. Shkreli · No. 1:16-cv-07175
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 23, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter from Scott A. Ziluck, counsel for Receiver Derek C. Abbott. It asks Judge Denise L. Cote to authorize the filing under seal of a separate substantive letter motion. The substantive letter motion was reportedly filed under seal at the same time as the request.
Background
The letter states that the receiver was appointed on August 16, 2021, to take steps connected with enforcing a judgment against Martin Shkreli. It says the judgment had a pre-interest amount of $2,614,930 and had not been satisfied in whole or in part. According to the letter, the receiver viewed Shkreli’s interest in Phoenixus stock as the principal asset of meaningful value that might be sold to satisfy the judgment.
Request to seal
The receiver’s counsel described the usual three-step analysis for sealing a court filing: whether the filing is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and whether specific interests outweigh that presumption. The letter characterized the substantive letter motion as a judicial document subject to a strong presumption of public access, but argued that sealing was justified because disclosure could harm the receiver’s ability to market the Phoenixus shares and could affect Phoenixus’ operations. The letter stated that the requested protection was narrow and limited to the issues in the substantive letter motion.
Disposition
The supplied text contains the receiver’s request but no order or other ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote. It therefore does not establish whether the request to file the substantive letter motion under seal was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.