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 temporarily granted Sotheby’s motion to seal materials pending review during summary-judgment proceedings.
Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc., the plaintiffs, non-party Sanford Heller, and individuals whose identifying information or names appeared in the materials could be affected by the temporary sealing decision.
What happened
Accent Delight International Ltd. and other plaintiffs sued Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc.; during the case, Sotheby’s asked to file redacted versions of certain documents and seal unredacted versions.
Sotheby’s said the proposed redactions covered confidential information, including information designated confidential by non-party Sanford Heller, personally identifying information, and the names of Sotheby’s clients. It argued that disclosure of client identities could cause competitive harm and that the identities were not relevant to the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He stated that the court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 434.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- May 2, 2022
Background
Defendants Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. asked for permission to file redacted versions of their response to the plaintiffs’ statement of material facts and counterstatement of material facts, along with specified exhibits to declarations by Marcus A. Asner and Samuel Valette. Sotheby’s stated that it would file unredacted versions under seal for most of the documents.
The proposed redactions included a quotation from a document designated confidential by non-party Sanford Heller; information that plaintiffs said was personally identifying; and the names of Sotheby’s clients. Sotheby’s described the client names as confidential and proprietary, said it was contractually required to keep them confidential, and argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm. Sotheby’s also said the court had previously allowed related materials to remain sealed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
Court’s Action
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 434.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not finally determine whether the materials would remain sealed or redacted, and the text provided does not decide the underlying summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.