Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2024

The Vinegar Factory, Inc. v. The United States Small Business Administration

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-04967
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In The Vinegar Factory v. Small Business Administration, Judge Furman temporarily granted a motion to seal financial information while reserving final review.

Who this affects

The Vinegar Factory, Inc. and Eli’s Leasing, Inc., whose confidential financial information appears in the documents at issue; the public, whose access to those materials is temporarily limited.

What happened

The Vinegar Factory, Inc. and Eli’s Leasing, Inc. asked the court to keep unredacted versions of three administrative decisions under seal in their case against the United States Small Business Administration. The decisions concern the agency’s denial of forgiveness of the companies’ Paycheck Protection Program loans.

The companies said the documents contained confidential financial information, including net worth, gross receipts, payroll calculations, and references to federal income tax returns. They submitted more limited redacted versions for public filing and unredacted versions under seal. The Small Business Administration took no position on keeping the unredacted versions sealed.

Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He said the court would decide whether to keep the materials redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entries 24 and 25.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Vinegar Factory, Inc. v. The United States Small Business Administration · No. 1:23-cv-04967
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 4, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs, The Vinegar Factory, Inc. and Eli’s Leasing, Inc., sought review of final agency action by the United States Small Business Administration concerning the denial of forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Program loans. Three decisions issued by the agency’s Office of Hearings and Appeals were attached to the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed publicly redacted versions of those decisions and asked to keep fully unredacted versions under seal. The requested redactions covered limited portions referring to the plaintiffs’ and their affiliates’ net worth and gross receipts, payroll calculations, and federal income tax returns. After conferring with the Small Business Administration, the plaintiffs further limited the redactions. The agency took no position on maintaining the unredacted documents under seal.

Court’s Action

The court’s order states: “The motion to seal is GRANTED temporarily.” The court will assess whether to keep the materials redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 24 and 25. The text provided does not contain a final ruling on whether the documents will remain sealed or on the underlying dispute over loan forgiveness.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.