FD Special Opportunities V, LLC v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-00797
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
FD Special Opportunities v. Silver Arch Capital: Judge Rochon denied defendants’ sealing request without prejudice because a protective order alone was insufficient.
The defendants’ request to keep six exhibits from public view was denied, while the public’s access to judicial documents remained protected unless the defendants made a sufficient renewed showing.
What happened
In FD Special Opportunities V, LLC v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC, the defendants asked to seal six exhibits filed with their summary-judgment motion. They relied only on a protective order covering the documents.
The court explained that discovery confidentiality does not by itself overcome the public’s right to see judicial documents. The defendants had not shown that sealing was justified under the applicable public-access standards.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the request without prejudice to renewal. The defendants could file a narrower, supported request by October 3, 2023; otherwise, the court said it would direct the clerk to unseal the documents.
The detailed version
- FD Special Opportunities V, LLC v. Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-00797
- Rochon
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
Defendants Silver Arch Capital Partners, LLC, Jeffrey Wolfer, and Matthew Cole filed a motion for summary judgment. They also asked to file Exhibits 9, 12, 23, 24, 25, and 26 under seal, relying on a protective order in the litigation.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a protective order or confidentiality agreement from discovery does not, by itself, overcome the presumption that the public may access judicial documents. The defendants therefore needed to show that sealing or redaction was justified under both the common-law right of public access and the First Amendment rights of the press and public to attend judicial proceedings and access certain judicial documents. The court found that they had not made that showing.
Ruling
The court denied the sealing request without prejudice to renewal. If the defendants wished to renew it, they had to file a letter-motion by October 3, 2023, identify the documents to be redacted or sealed, provide enough explanation, and narrowly tailor the request to the governing standard. If no renewed motion was filed by that date, the court said it would direct the clerk to unseal the documents. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 161 and 165.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.