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 PLLC, Judge Furman temporarily granted McKinsey’s request to seal materials pending review with the underlying motion.
McKinsey and the other parties and counsel with access to the filings covered by the temporary sealing order.
What happened
In Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, McKinsey asked to seal parts of its motion seeking arbitration and a pause in the case, along with a supporting declaration and exhibits. McKinsey said the materials contained confidential information about its legal representation and matters it contended belonged in confidential arbitration.
McKinsey proposed redacting some materials while sealing other exhibits completely. It relied on the court’s earlier decision to seal related materials and argued that its request balanced public access against the need to protect confidential attorney-client information and arbitration confidentiality.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He said the court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redact them when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 43.
The detailed version
- Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-07527
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
McKinsey & Co., Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey Holdings, Inc., and McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S. LLC—identified collectively as McKinsey—asked for permission to file certain materials under seal. The materials included parts of McKinsey’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, parts of Ronald C. Minkoff’s supporting declaration, Exhibit 1 to that declaration, and all of the declaration’s remaining exhibits.
McKinsey said the materials concerned confidential information about its legal representation by Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC and matters that McKinsey contended were subject to confidential arbitration and were not properly addressed in this court. McKinsey cited an earlier order that sealed related materials and proposed redacting confidential information from some filings while sealing the remaining exhibits in full.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court did not make a final decision in this order about whether the materials would remain sealed or be redacted. Instead, Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that the court would assess that issue when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 43.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.