Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Judge Cronan denied Brunckhorst’s motion to seal discovery filings without prejudice, allowing redacted refiling.
Frank Brunckhorst III, Eric Bischoff, the non-party subpoena recipient Dennis E. King, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Frank Brunckhorst III asked the court to seal his opposition to Eric Bischoff’s motion to quash a subpoena and a related supplemental letter. He sought to seal both documents entirely.
The court said these filings were judicial documents because they would help resolve the subpoena dispute. Although the filings received different levels of public-access protection, Brunckhorst’s concerns about business reputation and personal privacy did not justify sealing everything. The court said redactions could address those concerns.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the motion to seal without prejudice. He ordered Brunckhorst to withdraw the materials, file redacted versions with a new sealing motion, or tell the court he would file them publicly by February 7, 2023. If Brunckhorst chose public filing, Bischoff could seek sealing by February 10, 2023.
The detailed version
- Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
Eric Bischoff moved to quash, or invalidate, a third-party subpoena issued to Dennis E. King. In response, Frank Brunckhorst III publicly filed a motion asking to seal in their entirety his opposition to Bischoff’s motion to quash, including a letter brief and a declaration with exhibits. Brunckhorst also sought to seal a supplemental letter supporting the sealing request.
Legal standard
The court explained that the First Amendment and common law create a presumption that the public may access judicial records. It applied a three-step analysis: whether the materials are judicial documents, how strong the presumption of access is, and whether legitimate interests against disclosure outweigh that presumption.
Analysis
The court held that both the opposition and the supplemental letter were judicial documents. The opposition was relevant to the court’s resolution of the motion to quash, and motions to seal are generally treated as judicial documents. The presumption of access was somewhat lower for the opposition because it concerned a discovery dispute, while the supplemental letter received a strong presumption of access.
Brunckhorst argued that disclosure could harm business reputation and personal privacy. The court explained that sensitive business information that may justify sealing generally includes business strategy, financial materials, or other commercially sensitive information held by the business itself—not information about a third party’s reputation. The court agreed that the information at issue could damage personal privacy interests, but concluded that sealing the materials in their entirety was not narrowly tailored. The court said redactions should be possible to protect the relevant privacy and business interests.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan denied Brunckhorst’s motion to seal without prejudice to a later request to file redacted versions. By February 7, 2023, Brunckhorst had to withdraw the materials, file redacted versions with a new motion to seal, or inform the court that he would file them publicly. If he chose public filing, Bischoff could file a motion to seal by February 10, 2023.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.