Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-09011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman approved most sealing requests but required explanations or narrower redactions for six document groups.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, Sotheby’s and the other defendants, third party Sanford Heller, and public access to the identified court documents.
What happened
In Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby’s, the parties asked the court to keep documents sealed or redacted in connection with summary-judgment motions, expert-testimony motions, and a motion to strike.
The court reviewed a random selection of the requests. It approved them except for six groups of documents, finding that some documents did not have a sufficient basis for being entirely sealed or having all proposed redactions.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to explain by March 31, 2023, why four documents should not be made public and why two others should not be refiled with fewer redactions. Judge Furman granted the parties’ request to keep the other identified documents sealed or redacted, without prejudice to later requests to reconsider particular documents.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
The parties filed a joint letter identifying documents submitted with their summary-judgment motions, motions to exclude expert testimony, and motion to strike that they believed should remain sealed or redacted. The court noted that sealing requests ordinarily must be considered document by document, but it reviewed a random selection because of the number and nature of the documents.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that, except for six document groups, the requests were narrowly tailored to protect privacy interests, confidential business or client information, and respect for international law. The exceptions were ECF Nos. 471-13, 471-67, 479, 481, 483-6, and 483-7. The court found no basis to keep some of those documents entirely sealed or to maintain all proposed redactions. It noted that plaintiffs had cited information from ECF Nos. 471-13 and 471-67 in a publicly filed response, and that the court had quoted from ECF No. 483-6 in an earlier opinion. The court also found that information in ECF No. 483-7 was substantively the same as information it had quoted.
The court agreed that the agreement on pages 3 through 20 of ECF No. 483-6 could remain sealed because it constituted or contained confidential business information. It also found no problem with Sotheby’s other requested redactions in ECF Nos. 479 and 481.
Order
The court directed plaintiffs to show cause in writing by March 31, 2023, why ECF Nos. 471-13, 471-67, 483-6—except for the agreement on pages 3 through 20—and 483-7 should not be filed publicly. Plaintiffs also had to explain why ECF Nos. 479 and 481 should not be refiled publicly without the redactions requested by Sanford Heller. Plaintiffs and/or Heller could propose narrower redactions.
If plaintiffs failed to show cause, the documents would be unsealed without further notice, except for the agreement on pages 3 through 20 of ECF No. 483-6 and Sotheby’s requested redactions in ECF Nos. 479 and 481. Otherwise, the court’s ruling granting the request to keep the documents sealed or redacted remained subject to a later motion by anyone, including a third party, to reconsider a particular document or documents. Judge Furman therefore granted the parties’ request to maintain the identified documents in sealed or redacted form, without prejudice to such reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.