Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-07527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, Judge Furman temporarily granted Goldstrom’s motion to seal portions of filings, reserving a later decision on continued sealing or redactions.
Seth Goldstrom and the public’s access to the court filings covered by the temporary sealing order.
What happened
In Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, Seth Goldstrom asked to seal or redact portions of his opposition to McKinsey’s motion to compel arbitration, supporting declarations, and exhibits. The requested redactions concerned alleged arbitration-related information and communications involving lawyers and clients.
Goldstrom argued that some material was protected by attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and lawyers’ duties of confidentiality and loyalty. He also relied on the court’s earlier temporary sealing of McKinsey’s filings concerning the possible arbitration.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motions, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 52.
The detailed version
- Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-07527
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Seth Goldstrom sought permission to file under seal portions of his opposition to McKinsey’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. He also sought sealing or redaction of the Klipper Declaration, the Goldstrom Declaration, and exhibits attached to those declarations.
The requested redactions covered two general categories of material. First, they covered information concerning a possible arbitration, consistent with an earlier order that temporarily allowed McKinsey to file related materials under seal. Second, they covered material that Goldstrom said implicated attorney-client communications, attorney work product, and lawyers’ duties of confidentiality and loyalty to their clients. Goldstrom stated that the material involved communications and agreements among lawyers and clients connected with a related case, as well as events concerning the continuing representation of Goldstrom and others in that matter.
Court’s Action
The court’s order states: “the motion to seal is granted temporarily.” The court said it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 52.
The filing discussed the general presumption that court records should be publicly accessible, along with the possibility that protecting attorney-client communications, attorney work product, and other sensitive information could justify narrowly tailored sealing or redaction. The provided text does not identify the specific passages that were temporarily sealed or state the court’s final decision about whether any material would remain sealed or redacted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.