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
Concierge Auctions v. A-M 2018 Homes: Judge Caproni granted limited redactions of payment information in court filings.
Concierge Auctions, LLC and A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, as well as public access to the specified payment information in the identified court filings.
What happened
In Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, the parties jointly asked to redact information about payments made when Respondent sold its property. The information was provided to Concierge with an understanding that it would remain confidential.
The parties argued that the limited redactions were justified by privacy interests and the potential harm that disclosure of business information could cause. They also cited the public’s general right to access court documents and the legal standards for balancing that right against competing interests.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. The parties may make limited redactions to the specific payments identified in Concierge’s proposed redactions without seeking further permission from the Court.
The detailed version
- Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01681
- Valerie Caproni
- May 2, 2024
Request
The parties jointly asked the Court for permission to file with redactions Concierge Auctions’ memorandum supporting its motion for an attachment, the supporting declaration of Daniel A. Hoffman, and an exhibit. The proposed redactions concerned payments made by A-M 2018 Homes to individuals or entities when it closed on the sale of its property.
Parties’ Position
The parties represented that A-M 2018 Homes had provided the payment information to Concierge with the understanding that Concierge would keep it confidential. They argued that the limited redactions were consistent with Second Circuit standards governing access to judicial documents. Those standards require balancing the public’s common-law right to inspect court records against competing considerations, including potential harm from disclosure, privacy interests, the public interest, and whether the information is central or merely tangential to the dispute. The parties specifically relied on privacy and business interests that could be harmed by disclosure.
Ruling
The application was granted. The parties may make limited redactions to the specific payments identified in Concierge’s proposed redactions without submitting another application to the Court. The opinion does not address the underlying dispute or decide whether Concierge is entitled to an attachment. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.