Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-09011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman temporarily granted Defendants’ sealing request pending review of the underlying motions.
The order affects the parties’ filings and the public’s access to the materials at issue. The court temporarily allowed sealing but deferred the final sealing or redaction decision.
What happened
In Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby’s, Defendants Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. asked to file a redacted version of their response to Plaintiff’s motions in limine, while filing an unredacted version under seal.
Defendants said most proposed redactions concerned information Plaintiff considered confidential but argued that the materials were judicial documents presumptively open to the public. They made an exception for references to several identified documents. Plaintiff was required to explain why the redactions were needed.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court will decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when it rules on the underlying motions, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 559.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 6, 2023
Background
Defendants Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. asked the court for permission to file a redacted version of their October 5, 2023 memorandum opposing Plaintiff’s motions in limine. They stated that they would file an unredacted version under seal. The requested redactions quoted or summarized documents that Plaintiff considered confidential and had asked Defendants to file in redacted form.
The Parties’ Positions
Defendants argued that motions in limine and related filings are judicial documents, meaning documents filed with the court that generally carry a presumption of public access. They argued that, except for references to DX-106, DX-192, DX-199, DX-200, and DX-250, the redacted material should not remain sealed. Defendants also argued that information about Mr. Rybolovlev’s background and other art transactions was already publicly available. The court’s rules required Plaintiff to submit a letter explaining the need for the redactions within three business days.
Ruling
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court did not make a final decision on whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted; it stated that it would assess that issue when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 559.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning temporary sealing and public access to court filings. It does not decide the underlying motions in limine or the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.