Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-10861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Judge Parker granted the motion to seal two exhibits but required clearer exhibit labels.
Plaintiff Grant Johnson and Defendant Esports Entertainment Group, Inc.; the order governs public access to two exhibits and requires Plaintiff to refile the brief with clearer exhibit labels.
What happened
In Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc., Plaintiff Grant Johnson asked to seal Exhibits D and E attached to his opposition to Defendant’s motion to disqualify counsel. He said the only reason for sealing them was that Defendant had labeled them confidential.
The exhibits contained sensitive financial information and communications with the company’s board of directors and investors. Defendant said the information had not previously been made public and was covered by the parties’ confidentiality agreement and protective order.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to seal under the access standards described in the opinion. She also ordered Plaintiff to refile the brief by August 18, 2023, with clear exhibit-letter labels for every attachment, including Exhibits D and E.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10861
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Grant Johnson requested permission to file Exhibits D and E to his brief under seal. The brief opposed Defendant’s motion to disqualify Alan L. Frank Law Associates, P.C. Plaintiff stated that he sought sealing only because Defendant had designated the exhibits as confidential. Defendant requested that the email communication and related materials remain sealed under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the exhibits included Defendant’s financial information discussed in emails, along with other communications involving the Board of Directors and investors. Applying the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court concluded that sealing was proper. It explained that the information was sensitive and had not been disclosed publicly, and that the public’s presumption of access was lower because the exhibits concerned a motion to disqualify counsel.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Plaintiff’s motion to seal. The court also observed that it was unclear from ECF No. 52 whether all exhibits attached to the brief had been included and filed under seal. It ordered Plaintiff to refile the brief by August 18, 2023, with clear labels identifying the exhibit letter for each attachment, including Exhibits D and E.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.