Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Judge Cronan ordered summary-judgment materials kept sealed and approved redactions.
The parties and non-party who sought sealing, the public versions of the summary-judgment filings, and anyone seeking access to those filings.
What happened
Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff concerns motions to seal or partially redact the parties’ summary-judgment materials. The motions were filed by non-party Robert S. Martin and several parties.
The court found that sealing was justified by confidential business information and private health, financial, and identifying information. It ordered the summary-judgment materials to remain sealed and approved the proposed redactions to the publicly available versions.
Judge Cronan also directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entries containing the sealing motions. This order addressed access to court filings, not the merits of the summary-judgment dispute.
The detailed version
- Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
Under an earlier court order, non-party Robert S. Martin, Defendants Susan Stravitz Kemp and Richard Todd Stravitz, Defendant Eric Bischoff, and Plaintiff Frank Brunckhorst III moved to seal or partially redact the parties’ summary-judgment materials. The motions were filed on September 18, 2023.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that sealing was warranted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions. The reasons identified by the parties included confidential business information and private personal health, financial, and other identifying information.
Ruling
The court ordered the identified summary-judgment materials to remain under seal and approved the proposed redactions to their publicly accessible versions. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Numbers 281, 285, 286, and 287. The order did 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.