Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-01681
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Concierge Auctions v. A-M 2018 Homes, Judge Caproni granted permission to file limited redactions covering financial payments.
Concierge Auctions, LLC and A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, as well as members of the public seeking access to the financial-transfer information in the filed materials.
What happened
Concierge Auctions, LLC and A-M 2018 Homes, LLC asked the court to allow a letter and an exhibit to be filed with limited redactions. The materials concerned payments made when A-M 2018 Homes closed on the sale of its property.
The parties said the information had been provided with an understanding that it would remain confidential. They argued that protecting private business and financial information outweighed the public’s general right to view court records. The materials had already been filed with the requested redactions, and Concierge Auctions said it would file unredacted versions if permission was denied.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted Concierge Auctions’ motion to file the letter and Exhibit 6 in redacted form. The order addressed only the filing of the redacted materials and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01681
- Valerie Caproni
- May 1, 2024
Background
Concierge Auctions, LLC filed a letter and Exhibit 6 concerning its dispute with A-M 2018 Homes, LLC. The letter referred to payments made by A-M 2018 Homes to individuals or entities when it closed on the sale of its property. The parties jointly asked the Court for permission to keep those references redacted.
Request and reasoning
Concierge Auctions explained that A-M 2018 Homes had provided the payment information with the understanding that it would be kept confidential. The parties argued that the limited redactions were justified because privacy interests and the protection of business information could outweigh the general public-access presumption that applies to judicial documents.
The letter stated that Concierge Auctions had already electronically filed the letter and Exhibit 6 with redactions and was seeking retroactive permission for that filing. If the request were denied, Concierge Auctions said it would refile the materials without redactions. If granted, it would take no further action.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted Concierge Auctions’ motion to file its letter and Exhibit 6 in redacted form. The order did not rule on the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute; it addressed only whether the specified financial-transfer information could remain redacted in those filed materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.