International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees v. That's Amore Movie
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (I.A.T.S.E.) v. That's Amore Movie, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees v. That’s Amore Movie, LLC, Judge Furman temporarily granted Amore’s request to seal limited filings.
That’s Amore Movie, LLC and the plaintiff unions; the ruling temporarily governs public access to limited portions of That’s Amore’s opposition and its counsel’s declaration.
What happened
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (I.A.T.S.E.) and other unions sued That’s Amore Movie, LLC in a dispute involving a settlement agreement, an arbitration award, and related fees and costs.
That’s Amore asked to file limited portions of its opposition and its lawyer’s declaration under seal because they quoted the confidential settlement agreement. The unions were informed of the request and did not indicate opposition. The settlement agreement itself had already been sealed.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the material sealed or require redactions when resolving the underlying dispute, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 20.
The detailed version
- International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees v. That's Amore Movie · No. 1:23-cv-10731
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs are several labor unions. The defendant, That’s Amore Movie, LLC, represented that the parties had executed a Mutual General Release and Settlement Agreement on August 18, 2023. The court had previously granted the plaintiffs’ request to seal that agreement.
The underlying filings concerned the plaintiffs’ petition to confirm an arbitration award and application for attorneys’ fees and costs. That’s Amore filed an opposition to that application and a declaration from its counsel, John M. Gatti.
Motion to Seal
That’s Amore asked for permission to file limited portions of the opposition and declaration under seal. It sought to quote portions of the settlement agreement and relied on the agreement’s confidentiality provision and the court’s earlier sealing order. The unredacted filings were submitted under seal while the request was pending. The plaintiffs were informed of the request and did not indicate opposition.
The request addressed the public’s common-law and First Amendment rights of access to judicial records. That’s Amore argued that sealing was justified because the settlement agreement had already been sealed, the public docket described the settlement in general terms, and a stipulated judgment containing certain financial terms was intended to be filed publicly.
Ruling
Judge Jesse Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep the material sealed or require redactions when resolving the underlying dispute. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 20. The opinion does not make a final determination that the material will remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.