Knopf v. Esposito
This text of Knopf v. Esposito (Knopf v. Esposito) 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.
Opinion
BERRY LAW PLLC 745 FIFTH AVENUE, 5" Floor New York, NEw YORK 10151 Phone (212) 355-0777 Fax (212) 750-1371 Eric W. Berry (NY) e-mail BerryLawPlic @gmail.com January 25, 2021 Hon. Denise L. Cote, U.S.D.J. (via ECF) Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15B New York, New York 10007 Amended Motion to Seal Response
Your Honor: The Knopfs request that the Court seal their Response to Ms. Ringel’s Motion to seal (ECF 294), and permit a redacted version of that Response to be filed publicly. The Knopfs believe that the requested sealing and redaction is necessary to “preserve the integrity of a government investigation and law enforcement interests. . . [.]” In re Applications to Unseal 98 CR 1101(ILG), 568 Fed.Appx. 68, 70 (2d Cir. 2014). A redacted version of the Response is attached as Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric W. Berry Eric W. Berry ce: all counsel and pro se parties by ECF; Daniel Horwitz, Esq., attorney for Melissa Ringel (by ECF); Lorraine Nadel (by email)
The proposed redactions are approved. 1.25.2021 DENISE COTE United Btates District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Knopf v. Esposito, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knopf-v-esposito-nysd-2021.