Fundamental Partners III LP v. Voss

2024 NY Slip Op 34295(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: November 29, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 654738/2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Fundamental Partners III LP v Voss 2024 NY Slip Op 34295(U) November 29, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 654738/2024 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 654738/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

FUNDAMENTAL PARTNERS Ill LP, INDEX NO. 654 738/2024

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 09/12/2024 - V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 WILLIAM MITCHELL VOSS, SETH BAME, JASON H. REED DECISION+ ORDER ON Defendants. MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 38, 39 were read on this motion to SEAL

Plaintiff Fundamental Partners III, LP ("Fundamental" or "Plaintiff') moves for an order

sealing and/or redacting certain portions ofNYSCEF 3-17 filed in connection with this action.

No parties have opposed this motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion is granted.

Pursuant to§ 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing

"upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining

whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as

of the parties" (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]).

The Appellate Division has emphasized that "there is a broad presumption that the public

is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records" (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d

345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). "Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of

constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve

compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public's right to access"

654738/2024 FUNDAMENTAL PARTNERS Ill LP vs. VOSS, WILLIAM MITCHELL ET AL Page 1 of4 Motion No. 002

[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 654738/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

(Danco Labs., Ltd v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd, 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000]

[emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VL LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B. V, 28 AD3d

322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). "Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the

rule, 'the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling

circumstances to justify restricting public access"' (Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517

[1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]).

The Court has reviewed NYSCEF 3-17, and finds that sealing of Ex. 1, 3, and 4

(NYSCEF 4, 6, and 7) and permitting redactions of the Glassman Affirmation (NYSCEF 3;

redacted version filed at NYSCEF 18), Ex. 2 (NYSCEF 5, redacted version at NYSCEF 20), Ex.

5 (NYSCEF 8; redacted version at NYSCEF 23), Ex. 6 (NYSCEF 9; redacted version at

NYSCEF 24), Ex. 7 (NYSCEF 10; redacted version at NYSCEF 25), Ex. 9 (NYSCEF 12;

redacted version at NYSCEF 27), Ex. 11 (NYSCEF 14; redacted version at NYSCEF 29), Ex. 12

(NYSCEF 15; redacted version at NYSCEF 30), Ex. 13 (NYSCEF 16; redacted version at

NYSCEF 31 ), Memorandum of law (NYSCEF 17; redacted version at NYSCEF 32) comport

with the applicable sealing standards as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-50, and its

progeny, in that they contain sensitive non-public financial information about the Joint Venture

and its members, as well as commercially sensitive information about a third party, disclosure of

which would cause competitive harm to the parties. For the Glassman Affirmation, Exs. 2, 5, 6,

7, 9, 11, 12, and 13, and the memorandum of law, Plaintiff has proposed and justified targeted

redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216.1 (a).

However, for Ex. 8 (NYSCEF 11) and Ex. 10 (NYSCEF 13), Plaintiff submits that it

sought to redact certain attachments to those letters, however the "redacted versions" filed at

NYSCEF 26 and 28 do not contain any redactions. Accordingly, the Court will direct those

654738/2024 FUNDAMENTAL PARTNERS Ill LP vs. VOSS, WILLIAM MITCHELL ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002

[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 654738/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

documents to be sealed, and Plaintiff is directed to file redacted versions of those documents

consist with the ruling herein within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

Accordingly, it is:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Numbers 18, 20,

23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32 in their current, redacted form; it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Numbers 3, 4, 5,

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, and 28 under seal, so that the documents may only be

accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file redacted versions of Ex. 8 and 10 (NYSCEF 11 and

13) within five (5) days of the date of this Order; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon the

Clerk's Office, and such service upon shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth

in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases

(accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website); it is further

ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject

matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this Order, parties may file a joint

stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be

filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any redacted document

is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further

ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or

redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court

654738/2024 FUNDAMENTAL PARTNERS Ill LP vs. VOSS, WILLIAM MITCHELL ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002

[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 654738/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2024

11/29/2024 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION □ DENIED □ GRANTED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

654738/2024 FUNDAMENTAL PARTNERS Ill LP vs. VOSS, WILLIAM MITCHELL ET AL Page4 of 4 Motion No. 002

[* 4] 4 of 4