Mark A. Perelman v. Visa USA, Inc.

S.D. New York

Mark A. Perelman v. Visa USA, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 28, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-09793

StatusUnknown

This text of Mark A. Perelman v. Visa USA, Inc. (Mark A. Perelman v. Visa USA, Inc.) 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

Mark A. Perelman v. Visa USA, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED MARK A. PERELMAN, BATE DU DEIOIE Plaintiff, ORDER against: 24-CV-9793 (JHR) (KHP) VISA USA, INC., Defendant. KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge. On January 27, 2026, the parties filed a joint letter motion to seal an exhibit submitted in support of Plaintiff’s response to Visa’s January 12, 2026 letter. (See ECF Nos. 49, 53) Specifically, the parties seek to partially seal and redact Exhibit 1 contained in their joint filing at ECF No. 53. The Court has reviewed the filing and finds that Exhibit 1 contains personal information, specifically the names of individuals who are non-parties to this action, and therefore redaction of such documents is consistent with the Lugosch standard. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that courts may grant motions to seal where the parties make “specific, on the record findings ... demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and [sealing] is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”); see also Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Musk, No. 22 Civ. 3026, 2024 WL 2305264, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2024) (granting motion to redact non-party employee names from a filing). Inclusion of the non-party names here would likewise be irrelevant and privacy interests outweigh the interests of public access. Therefore, the motion to partially seal and redact at ECF No. 53 is GRANTED. In the future, the Court requests that a more detailed explanation of the privacy interests at stake be provided and notes that the sealing of an information filed in connection with a non-dispositive matter does not mean that such information will be sealed if filed in

connection with a dispositive motion. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 53. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2026 Pe New York, New York that aad L4 KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED MARK A. PERELMAN, BATE DU DEIOIE Plaintiff, ORDER against: 24-CV-9793 (JHR) (KHP) VISA USA, INC., Defendant. KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge. On January 27, 2026, the parties filed a joint letter motion to seal an exhibit submitted in support of Plaintiff’s response to Visa’s January 12, 2026 letter. (See ECF Nos. 49, 53) Specifically, the parties seek to partially seal and redact Exhibit 1 contained in their joint filing at ECF No. 53. The Court has reviewed the filing and finds that Exhibit 1 contains personal information, specifically the names of individuals who are non-parties to this action, and therefore redaction of such documents is consistent with the Lugosch standard. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that courts may grant motions to seal where the parties make “specific, on the record findings ... demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and [sealing] is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”); see also Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Musk, No. 22 Civ. 3026, 2024 WL 2305264, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2024) (granting motion to redact non-party employee names from a filing). Inclusion of the non-party names here would likewise be irrelevant and privacy interests outweigh the interests of public access. Therefore, the motion to partially seal and redact at ECF No. 53 is GRANTED. In the future, the Court requests that a more detailed explanation of the privacy interests at stake be provided and notes that the sealing of an information filed in connection with a non-dispositive matter does not mean that such information will be sealed if filed in

connection with a dispositive motion. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 53. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2026 Pe New York, New York that aad L4 KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mark A. Perelman v. Visa USA, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-a-perelman-v-visa-usa-inc-nysd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack