Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-07527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg, Judge Furman granted McKinsey’s request to seal a filing and ordered corrected redacted versions.
The McKinsey Defendants, the parties and lawyers in the case, and members of the public who access the federal court docket were affected by the sealing order and required replacement filing.
What happened
Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC involved a request by the McKinsey Defendants to seal an interpleader filing and its exhibits. The request followed the mistaken public filing of exhibits in partially redacted form.
The McKinsey Defendants asked the court to seal the filing in full and allow them to replace it with a version containing proposed redactions to the complaint and complete redactions of the exhibits.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. He directed the Clerk to keep ECF No. 31 sealed in full and ordered the McKinsey Defendants to file the corrected public versions by September 11, 2023. The court said its decision could be reconsidered after any motion to compel arbitration is resolved.
The detailed version
- Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-07527
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The McKinsey Defendants—McKinsey & Company, Inc.; McKinsey & Company Inc. United States; McKinsey Holdings, Inc.; and McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC—submitted a letter-motion seeking to seal portions of an interpleader complaint and its exhibits. They explained that they had mistakenly filed the exhibits on the public docket in partially redacted form, although the exhibits were intended to be fully redacted publicly. They asked the court to seal ECF No. 31 in its entirety and permit them to file a corrected public version.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the McKinsey Defendants’ interest in keeping information about their legal representation confidential justified the proposed limited redactions. The court also considered their position that the matter is subject to arbitration. The court stated that its decision could be reevaluated after any motion to compel arbitration is resolved.
Disposition
The application was granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain ECF No. 31 under seal in its entirety. The McKinsey Defendants were ordered to file the correct redacted versions for public viewing no later than September 11, 2023. The Clerk was also directed to terminate ECF Nos. 30 and 33.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.