Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat…
Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat Entitled Humidity, 1982, In Rem
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-04669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Athena Art Finance v. Humidity, Judge Figueredo partly granted and partly denied sealing requests, keeping some materials confidential and requiring disclosure of others.
Athena Art Finance Corp., Satfinance Investment Limited, Delahunty Limited, and members of the public seeking access to the case filings.
What happened
In Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat Entitled Humidity, 1982, In Rem, six requests asked the court to keep documents and excerpts from public view. The requests involved Satfinance Investment Limited, Delahunty Limited, and Athena Art Finance Corp., including materials connected to pending summary-judgment motions.
The court kept under seal documents that had already been sealed. It allowed redactions in Satfinance’s filings when they discussed previously sealed materials, but denied some requests that relied only on confidentiality designations or a protective order. It also kept certain deposition excerpts and expert reports sealed, while denying requests covering other excerpts.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Athena’s requests to seal commercially sensitive business information and related expert-report material, and directed the parties to remove restrictions or redactions where sealing was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate all six sealing motions.
The detailed version
- Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat… · No. 1:20-cv-04669
- George Daniels
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
The court considered six outstanding letter motions to seal, identified as ECF Nos. 193, 195, 207, 220, 241, and 244. It applied the presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public, while recognizing that courts may restrict access when competing interests justify doing so. The court stated that a general reference to a protective order or a confidentiality designation is not enough by itself to justify sealing.
Satfinance’s Motion, ECF No. 193
Satfinance Investment Limited sought permission to file three sets of materials under seal because Athena had not removed its confidentiality designations or because the materials discussed documents Athena had designated confidential.
The court ruled as follows:
- Documents produced by Athena with specified “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” Bates ranges had previously been sealed under ECF No. 216 and therefore would remain under seal. - The request to seal excerpts from Cynthia Sachs’s deposition was granted only for the excerpts previously sealed at ECF No. 201-1; the request was otherwise denied. - The request to seal excerpts from Andrea Danese’s deposition was granted only for excerpts previously sealed at ECF No. 201-2. Satfinance had not specified which other Danese excerpts it wanted sealed. - The February 23, 2023 expert report of Michael Plummer had previously been approved for sealing and could remain under seal. - Satfinance was permitted to file redacted versions of its opposition brief and its response to Delahunty’s statement of undisputed material facts, but only where those filings discussed, restated, or responded to documents previously filed under seal at ECF No. 186.
Delahunty’s Motion, ECF No. 195
Delahunty Limited sought to seal excerpts from Sachs’s deposition, its opposition brief, and its response to Athena’s statement of undisputed material facts. The court stated that the Sachs excerpts previously sealed at ECF No. 201-1 would remain under seal. To the extent Delahunty sought to seal other Sachs excerpts, the motion was denied. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for each of Delahunty’s requested brief and statement-of-facts materials.
Athena’s Motions, ECF Nos. 207, 220, and 244
Athena sought to seal expert reports, emails, and deposition transcript pages that it said contained sensitive, nonpublic information about its underwriting and due-diligence practices. The court found that Athena had identified a legitimate business interest that outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The requests were granted for the February 23, 2023 expert report and disclosure of Dave Katz, the March 30, 2023 rebuttal report of David Katz, specified April 7, 2017 emails, and transcript pages from Michael Plummer’s deposition.
The court also noted that the Michael Plummer expert report had previously been approved for sealing. Athena’s request to seal that report and its redline version was granted. Its request to seal portions of its reply brief that quoted or summarized the expert reports was also granted.
The opinion’s footnote states that Satfinance sought to seal many of the same materials addressed in Athena’s motions, including the Plummer and Katz reports, the redline report, and Plummer deposition excerpts. Although Satfinance’s stated basis was Athena’s refusal to remove confidentiality designations, the court permitted those materials to be filed under seal in light of Athena’s applications.
Directions and Disposition
The parties were directed to remove viewing restrictions from documents for which sealing applications were denied and to remove redactions from documents that referred to materials for which sealing applications were denied. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 193, 195, 207, 220, 241, and 244. The ruling addressed access to and sealing of court filings; it did not decide the pending summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.