Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled July 21, 2023

McGowan v. Stanley

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:22-cv-06971
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In McGowan v. Stanley, defendants asked Judge Cote to keep certain company records restricted, but the provided text contains no court ruling.

Who this affects

The defendants, Chief Consolidated Mining Co., Osisko Development Corp., LeadFx, other non-parties identified in the letter, and public access to the listed court documents could be affected by the requested restriction.

What happened

In McGowan v. Stanley, the defendants asked the court to keep several filed documents viewable only by the parties and the court. The request concerned records connected to Chief Consolidated Mining Co., including bank statements, payment records, and board meeting minutes.

The defendants said the documents contained private financial information, transaction terms, mining and joint-venture information, financing discussions, and other nonpublic business details. They also said Chief’s successor, Osisko Development Corp., and other affected entities or people had not agreed to public disclosure.

The provided text is a letter presenting the defendants’ proposed findings, not a ruling. It does not show that Judge Denise Cote granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McGowan v. Stanley · No. 1:22-cv-06971
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
July 21, 2023

Nature of the document

The provided text is a July 20, 2023 letter from attorney D. Craig Parry to Judge Denise Cote. The letter responds to the court’s July 19, 2023 order and presents defendants’ proposed findings supporting continued restricted access to certain docket entries. The text does not include a judicial order or disposition.

Documents defendants identified

The defendants asked that Dkt. Nos. 74-7, 74-9, 74-10, 74-11, 74-12, 74-14, 74-15, 74-16, 74-17, 74-20, 74-22, 74-23, and 74-25 remain viewable only by the parties and the court.

The letter describes the documents as follows:

- Dkt. 74-7 is a bank-account statement for non-party Chief Consolidated Mining Co. It includes an account number and information about financial transactions. - Dkt. Nos. 74-9, 74-10, 74-11, 74-12, and 74-14 are wire-transfer forms and checks from Chief accounts. They include account numbers and information about payments to defendants and non-parties, including law firms. - Dkt. Nos. 74-15 and 74-22 are identical board-meeting minutes discussing real-estate transactions, financing, a joint venture, water allocations, and a proposed stock issuance. - Dkt. Nos. 74-16 and 74-23 are identical board-meeting minutes discussing possible transactions, mining activity, water supplies, and stock compensation for named employees. - Dkt. Nos. 74-17 and 74-25 are identical board-meeting minutes discussing a mining joint venture, liabilities, debt and equity financing, water-supply issues, and a possible acquisition. - Dkt. 74-20 is a letter between LeadFx and Chief amending a share-sale agreement, including payment prices and terms.

Reasons offered for restricted access

The defendants stated that the documents contain information that was not publicly known. They also stated that Osisko Development Corp., which they said acquired Chief, had not consented to public disclosure. For some documents, the letter additionally stated that LeadFx, defendants, non-parties, or other identified non-parties had not consented to disclosure.

Disposition

The provided text contains only the defendants’ request and does not state what Judge Denise Cote decided. It therefore does not show that the request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.