Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc.

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eee Xs ELECTRONICALLY FILED Grant Johnson, : DOC A DATE FILED: 9/8/2023 Plaintiff, : : ORDER -against- : 22-CV-10861 (PGG) (KHP) Esports Entertainment Group, Inc., : Defendant. : ~--------------------------------------------------------------X KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has reviewed the parties’ letter requesting to seal the transcript for the August 23, 2023 conference. (ECF No. 87.) After review, there is nothing in the transcript that warrants redaction under the presumption of openness that attaches to judicial documents under Lugosch. See Pullman v. Alpha Media Pub., Inc., 2014 WL 5044224, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2014). The Court simply asked the parties about scheduling a settlement conference, and counsel stated their reasons for not wanting to schedule a conference at that time. Counsel explicitly states prior to stating their reasons that this discussion was on the record and expressed caution about the information they wanted to express on the record. Neither party stated any position on settlement demands but rather engaged in a general discussion with the Court regarding whether scheduling a settlement conference at that time would be productive, and the parties were aware that the discussion was on the record. This is unlike a case where a settlement amount is disclosed in a hearing transcript. See, e.g., Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d

133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore, Defendant has not demonstrated any reasons that outweigh the public presumption of access, and the requested redaction is denied. The issues in the letter motion at ECF No. 87 having been resolved, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to close the letter motion at ECF No. 87. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 8, 2023 New York, New York CA He fe. kis KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge