Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York

S.D. New York

Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York

DecidedFebruary 11, 2025

Docket1:21-cv-03982

StatusUnknown

This text of Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York (Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

King & Spalding LLP Kr NG & S PALDI NG 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor New York, New York 10036 Tel: +1 212 556 2100 So ordered, nunc pro tunc. Fax: +1212 556 222 SO ORDERED: Je-— www kslaw.com sl Jennifer S. Recine 2/2025 7 Direct Dial: +1 212 556 2370 HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER jrecine@kslaw.com UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE June 20, 2024 VIA ECF Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 435, New York, NY 10007 Re: Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, et al. v. City of N_Y., 21-cv-3982 (ALC) (RWL) Dear Judge Carter: We write on behalf of Plaintiffs Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, Ira Drukier, Richard Born, and Sean MacPherson pursuant to Rule 6.C.ii and Rule 6.D of your Individual Practices to request leave to file Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’ Letter Response to Defendant’s June 14, 2024 Letter under seal. Defendant has designated Exhibit 10 as Confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action. See ECF No. 51 4 16. Plaintiffs have no independent basis for seeking a sealing order with respect to Exhibit 10 nor believe that the limited use of this document warrants maintaining Exhibit 10 under seal in its entirety. Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal to allow the parties sufficient time to confer regarding the status of Exhibit 10 pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (id. § 15) or for Defendant to move the Court for a sealing order consistent with Rule 6.C.11 and Rule 6.D of the Court’s Individual practices. In the event Defendant seeks to maintain Exhibit 10 under seal, Plaintiffs reserve the nght to oppose such request and to seek unsealing, including on the grounds that Defendant’s sealing request is not “narrowly tailored” to “preserve higher values” than the public’s presumptive First Amendment right to access judicial documents in civil proceedings. Liugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2006).

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer S. Recine Jennifer S. Recine

cc: Counsel of Record via ECF

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

King & Spalding LLP Kr NG & S PALDI NG 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor New York, New York 10036 Tel: +1 212 556 2100 So ordered, nunc pro tunc. Fax: +1212 556 222 SO ORDERED: Je-— www kslaw.com sl Jennifer S. Recine 2/2025 7 Direct Dial: +1 212 556 2370 HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER jrecine@kslaw.com UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE June 20, 2024 VIA ECF Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 435, New York, NY 10007 Re: Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, et al. v. City of N_Y., 21-cv-3982 (ALC) (RWL) Dear Judge Carter: We write on behalf of Plaintiffs Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, Ira Drukier, Richard Born, and Sean MacPherson pursuant to Rule 6.C.ii and Rule 6.D of your Individual Practices to request leave to file Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’ Letter Response to Defendant’s June 14, 2024 Letter under seal. Defendant has designated Exhibit 10 as Confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action. See ECF No. 51 4 16. Plaintiffs have no independent basis for seeking a sealing order with respect to Exhibit 10 nor believe that the limited use of this document warrants maintaining Exhibit 10 under seal in its entirety. Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal to allow the parties sufficient time to confer regarding the status of Exhibit 10 pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (id. § 15) or for Defendant to move the Court for a sealing order consistent with Rule 6.C.11 and Rule 6.D of the Court’s Individual practices. In the event Defendant seeks to maintain Exhibit 10 under seal, Plaintiffs reserve the nght to oppose such request and to seek unsealing, including on the grounds that Defendant’s sealing request is not “narrowly tailored” to “preserve higher values” than the public’s presumptive First Amendment right to access judicial documents in civil proceedings. Liugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2006).

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer S. Recine Jennifer S. Recine

cc: Counsel of Record via ECF

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC v. City Of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chelsea-hotel-owner-llc-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack