Ghoulam v. Bentivoglio

2025 NY Slip Op 31691(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 650061/2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Ghoulam v Bentivoglio 2025 NY Slip Op 31691(U) May 9, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650061/2025 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. 650061/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 173 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X FAOUZI GHOULAM, FG INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., INDEX NO. 650061/2025

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 02/07/2025 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 FABRIZIO ARENGI BENTIVOGLIO, FIDIA CAPITAL, LLC, MORROW SODALI GLOBAL LLC DECISION + ORDER ON Defendants. MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT .

Defendants Fabrizio Arengi Bentivoglio and Fidia Capital, LLC (collectively,

“Defendants”) move for an order sealing certain documents filed in this action as NYSCEF

Document Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, and 72, and permitting Defendants to file redacted

versions of the same. Defendants’ motion is unopposed. For the following reasons, Defendants’

motion is granted in part.

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

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 650061/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 173 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2025

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”

(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. VI, 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]). Good cause must “rest on a sound basis or legitimate need

to take judicial action” (Danco Labs., 274 AD2d at 9). Agreements to seal are insufficient as

such agreements do not establish “good cause” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans,

Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 33147[U], * 9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]).

Defendants seek to redact account numbers listed in the bank statements filed as

NYSCEF Document Nos. 62-66. Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.5, the parties are required to

redact all but the last four digits of bank account numbers in public filings whether or not a

sealing order has been sought (22 NYCRR § 202.5 [e] [1] [iv]). Accordingly, Defendants are

permitted to redact all but the last four digits of the bank account numbers in these documents.

Defendants also seek to redact certain transactions listed in the bank statements filed as

NYSCEF Document Nos. 62-65, namely those not referenced by Plaintiffs in their moving

papers in support of their motion for interim relief (Mot. Seq. 1). Defendants provide no

compelling circumstances to justify these redactions; rather, they merely assert that the

transactions are of little public interest. This does not comport with the applicable sealing

standards as laid out in Mosallem (76 AD3d at 348-50), and its progeny.

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 650061/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 173 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2025

Defendants also seek to maintain Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in support of their

motion for interim relief in the redacted format in which it was filed (see NYSCEF 60 [“Reply

Memo”]). This request is based in part on the memorandum’s references to confidential

financial statements, which Defendants state may have been obtained improperly (NYSCEF 69

[Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Sealing Motion] at 2 n. 2). However, Defendants

disclaim that they seek to redact the financial statements themselves, which were publicly filed

to the docket (id.; see NYSCEF 33). Additional redactions in the Reply Memo pertain to certain

transactions detailed in the bank statements discussed above. Defendants, however, only seek to

redact portions of the bank statements that were not referenced in Plaintiffs’ moving papers.

Defendants do not establish that the information is sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction

under Mosallem (76 AD3d at 348-50) and its progeny.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is granted in part; it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Numbers 62-66

under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and

authorized court personnel; it is further

ORDERED that Defendants shall file copies of the documents filed as NYSCEF 62-66

with the redactions required under 22 NYCRR § 202.5(e)(1)(iv) within 30 days of the date of

this decision and order; it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk is directed to unseal the documents filed as NYSCEF

Document Numbers 71 and 72; it is further

ORDERED that Defendants shall serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk’s Office

within five (5) days of the date of this Order, and such service shall be made in accordance with

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 650061/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 173 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2025

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); and it is

further

ORDERED that nothing in this decision and order shall be construed as authorizing the

sealing or redaction of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

5/9/2025 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

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

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002

4 of 4 [* 4]