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, Judge Furman temporarily granted McKinsey’s motion to seal portions of its reply and terminated ECF No. 63.
The order affects the McKinsey entities seeking temporary sealing and public access to portions of their reply; it also leaves open whether those materials will remain sealed or redacted.
What happened
Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg concerns a request by several McKinsey entities to restrict public access to parts of a reply supporting their motion to compel arbitration.
McKinsey said the reply contained confidential information about its legal representation and matters it contended were subject to confidential arbitration. It proposed redactions while leaving other parts of the reply available to the public.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would later decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motions, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 63.
The detailed version
- Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-07527
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 13, 2023
Background
The opinion concerns a sealing request in Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC. McKinsey & Co., Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey Holdings, Inc., and McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S. LLC were identified as third-party interpleader defendants and collectively referred to as “McKinsey.”
McKinsey sought permission to file under seal portions of its reply in further support of its motion to compel arbitration. The reply concerned information related to the legal representation of McKinsey and others by Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC. It also discussed matters that McKinsey contended were subject to confidential arbitration and not properly addressed in the federal court proceeding.
Sealing request
McKinsey proposed redactions covering confidential material that it said was subject to arbitration while allowing public access to the remaining portions of the reply. McKinsey relied on the same grounds that it said had supported an earlier order sealing portions of its motion to compel arbitration, including confidentiality relating to arbitration and attorney-client information.
The opinion does not decide whether arbitration should be compelled, whether the information is legally privileged, or whether the reply ultimately should remain sealed or redacted.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 63.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.