Grant v. Trump
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-07103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Grant v. Trump, Judge Koeltl received plaintiffs’ request to seal exhibits for their summary-judgment motion; the text shows no ruling.
The request concerned plaintiffs Edmond Grant, also known as Eddy Grant, and Greenheart Music Ltd., and confidential materials produced or designated by the plaintiffs, defendants Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Daniel J. Scavino, Jr.’s counsel.
What happened
Grant v. Trump concerns a letter from the plaintiffs’ lawyers asking to file certain documents under seal while preparing a motion for summary judgment. The documents included deposition excerpts, documents marked confidential, and licensing agreements containing sensitive business and financial information.
The plaintiffs said defendants maintained confidentiality designations for some materials and asked to seal them. They also asked to file redacted versions of documents whose contents would be quoted in their motion papers. The letter says the plaintiffs disputed whether all of the material needed confidential treatment and might later ask to remove some designations.
The document does not state that the court granted or denied the request. Judge John Koeltl’s ruling is therefore not shown in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-07103
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 18, 2023
Nature of the document
The provided text is a September 15, 2023 letter from counsel for plaintiffs Edmond Grant, also known as Eddy Grant, and Greenheart Music Ltd. It asks the court for permission to file specified materials under seal in connection with the plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for summary judgment. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and the text does not report a ruling on the request.
Materials at issue
The letter states that the parties had a stipulated protective order entered on February 17, 2022. According to the letter, defendants designated certain produced documents as “Confidential” and designated the entire depositions of Donald J. Trump and Daniel J. Scavino, Jr. as “Highly Confidential / Attorneys Eyes Only.” The plaintiffs also designated some documents they produced as “Confidential.”
The plaintiffs requested permission to file under seal documents bearing Bates numbers DEF 000047-48 and excerpts from the depositions of Donald J. Trump and Daniel J. Scavino, Jr. They also sought to seal specified licensing agreements related to the plaintiffs’ songs because, according to the letter, those agreements referred to or contained confidential, financial, and business information. Because the agreements would be referred to or quoted in the plaintiffs’ memorandum of law and statement of material facts, the plaintiffs additionally requested permission to file redacted versions of those papers while submitting unredacted versions to the court.
Positions and meet-and-confer process
The letter says the plaintiffs disputed the need to keep all of the materials confidential, particularly the deposition transcripts, and believed limited redactions could adequately protect defendants’ interests. It also says the plaintiffs might later seek to remove some confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs’ counsel reported meeting and conferring with defendants’ counsel on September 14 and 15, 2023. The letter further states that defendants’ counsel maintained the confidentiality designations for the identified documents and Trump deposition excerpts and were to explain the need for sealing or redaction within three days. The plaintiffs had not met and conferred with Scavino’s counsel before filing the excerpts but said they planned to do so immediately.
Disposition
The provided text contains no order granting, denying, or otherwise resolving the plaintiffs’ sealing request. It therefore does not establish the court’s disposition. Judge John G. Koeltl is identified as the judge addressed by the letter. The supplied case metadata lists September 18, 2023 as the filing date, while the letter itself is dated September 15, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.