FD Special Opportunities V, LLC v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-00797
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In FD Special Opportunities V v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, Judge Rochon denied plaintiffs’ request to seal or redact a supplemental filing because required documents were not filed.
The plaintiffs’ request to seal or redact their supplemental declaration was denied; the defendants had stated that they did not object to the request.
What happened
In FD Special Opportunities V, LLC v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC, the plaintiffs were preparing a supplemental declaration identifying members of plaintiff entities and alleging their citizenship, as required by an earlier court order.
The plaintiffs asked to file the declaration under seal or, alternatively, to redact the names of members and those members’ members. They said the information involved private financial details about people who were not parties to the case. The defendants did not object.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the request because the plaintiffs had not filed the documents required by the court’s rules when seeking sealing or redaction. The court said the plaintiffs could renew the request by following the applicable rules and case law.
The detailed version
- FD Special Opportunities V, LLC v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-00797
- Rochon
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
An earlier court order required the plaintiffs to submit supplemental information identifying the members of the plaintiff limited liability companies and trusts, the members of those entities’ members, and the citizenship of those people or entities. The plaintiffs stated that they were preparing a supplemental declaration for filing.
The Request
The plaintiffs asked to file the supplemental declaration under seal or, alternatively, to redact the names of members and members’ members through the ownership chain. They argued that the information concerned personal financial details of nonparties who had substantial privacy interests. The plaintiffs also stated that defense counsel had no objection.
Ruling
Judge Rochon denied the request. Under the court’s standing order and Individual Rule of Practice 4(B), a party seeking to file a document under seal must simultaneously file the proposed sealed document under seal through the court’s electronic filing system and electronically relate it to the motion. A party seeking to file a redacted document must simultaneously file the publicly redacted version and a sealed unredacted version with the proposed redactions highlighted.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not followed those requirements. It stated that, if the plaintiffs wished to seek sealing or redaction, they had to follow all applicable rules and case law, including the authorities cited by the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.