- Sep 14, 2023
On September 13, 2023, the Southern District of New York denied Petitioners Eletson Holdings, Inc. and Eletson Corporation's motion to file a redacted version of their petition to confirm an arbitration award that had previously been filed completely under seal. The Opinion explains the interests at stake when it comes to redacting information in award confirmation proceedings.
The Court emphasized that presumption of public access is of the highest in connection with petitions to confirm arbitration awards which are papers that "directly affect an adjudication," as they are treated like summary judgment motions in the Southern District. The Court explained that, as such, public access to the petition to confirm and supporting materials implicates "all of the interests that the Second Circuit has held justify the presumption of public access: 'the need for federal courts,' in the discharge of their substantive duties and 'particularly because they are independent,' 'to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'" Sealing a petition to confirm, explained the Court, "would leave the public unaware of the basis for the court's decision, frustrating the twin goals of 'educating the public about the operation of the courts ... and informing the public [about] matters of public concern.'"
The Court found no countervailing factors that would require it to depart from this reasoning. Most interestingly, the Court reminded the parties that, as to "information regarding the consideration to be paid," court have been "skeptical" to seal it, especially where it is highly relevant to the dispute and to the public's understanding of the decision.
The Court also explained that the arbitration award--the object and the "very heart" of such a dispute, cannot be filed under seal. The award is not "filed gratuitously," but the movant is required to include it with the petition.
The case is Eletson Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-7331 (S.D.N.Y). The petitioners are represented by Colin Underwood and Louis Solomon of Reed Smith LLP, and there is no information yet as to the respondents' counsel.
The opinion can be downloaded below.