Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
ANATOLE SHAGALOV and NATURE MORTE
LLC
Index No. 655576/17
Plaintiffs '
Motion Sequence No. 7
Justice Eileen Bransten
-against-
ASHER EDELMAN, ARTEMUS USA LLC,
EDELMAN ARTS, INC., JOHN DOE 1-20,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS'
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Jim Walden
Georgia Winston
Amanda Senske
Walden Macht & Haran LLP
One Battery Park Plaza
34th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (212) 335-2030
Attorneys for Defendants
1 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
Table of Contents
A RY TEMENT
S T APRELIMW 1
....................................................................................................
AC TU AL B AC R OF D •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
L A L T A NDS ALE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
AR UMENT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
CO C LU I ONNS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•
1
2 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
Table of Authorities
Cases
Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman,
80 A.D.3d 181 (1st Dep't .............................................................................................
4
2010).............................................................................................
3,
D'Amour v. Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP,
2007 WL 4126386 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4
2007)........................................................................
........................................................................
3,
Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudoff,
183 A.D.2d 678 (1st Dep't ...............................................................................................
4
1992)...............................................................................................
Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudolf,
152 Misc. 2d 812 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4
1991)..............................................................................
..............................................................................
JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson,
2010 WL 6781684 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 22, .........................................................
4
2010).........................................................
3,
Matter of Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC,
2006 WL 399766 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006)...................................................................
3
...................................................................
Statutes
22 NYCRR 2
216...........................................................................................................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1,
..
11
3 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
Defendants Asher Edelman, Artemus USA LLC and Edelman Arts, Inc. (collectively,
"Artemus"), by their attorneys Walden Macht & Haran LLP, respectfully submit this
Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion to Seal by Order to Show Cause, pursuant to 22
NYCRR 216.1(a).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Artemus submits this motion to permanently seal confidential information contained within
Plaintiffs Anatole Shagalov and Nature Morte LLC's Motion for Interim Relief by Order to Show
("Plaintiffs'
Cause, Motion Sequence No. 6 (Dkt. 172) Motion 6"). Pursuant to the Stipulation
(" Order"
and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information ("Confidentiality
"Order" Information"
or "Order") in this case, Artemus seeks to redact as "Confidential certain financial
Plaintiffs'
and business proprietary information included in Plaintiffs Motion 6. Now, as further required
by the Court's Individual Rules and Confidentiality Order, Artemus moves this Court by order to
show cause to permanently seal such Confidential Information.
Courts frequently recognize that not all information filed in court should be subject to
Plaintiffs'
public disclosure. Motion 6 includes Artemus's proprietary, non-public financial and
business data. Such data qualifies as Confidential Information pursuant to the Confidentiality
Order because itis proprietary and highly sensitive, and the disclosure of such information would
be detrimental to Artemus's business affairs. As a result, Artemus seeks to have itredacted from
Plaintiffs'
Motion 6.
Because the amount of material redacted by Artemus is nominal and relates only to its
private financial and business data, the interests of the public are not harmed as the overwhelming
Plaintiffs'
majority of Plaintiffs Motion 6 is open to public access. Moreover, the proposed redactions are
I
4 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
consistent with this Court's Oral Order on June 26, 2018 in connection with its decision on Motion
Sequence No. 5, which was also a sealing motion. This Court should therefore grant Artemus's
Motion to Seal.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
On July 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Interim Relief by Order to Show Cause (see
Plaintiffs'
Motion Sequence No. 6, NYSCEF Dkt. 172). In support of Plaintiffs Motion 6, Plaintiffs
Affidavit"
submitted an affidavit (the "Shagalov Affidavit"), a Memorandum of Law in support ofits Motion,
and 3 exhibits which contain Artemus's sensitive, proprietary information that qualifies as
Information"
"Confidential under the Confidentiality Order previously entered by this Court.
Plaintiffs'
During the July 5, 2018 hearing, Plaintiffs counsel stated that he does not have any redaction
issues and thus would not be moving to seal. (See Transcript at pg. 27, lines 16-17) (Dkt. 181).
Per this Court's rules, Artemus's counsel sent a chart of Artemus's proposed redactions to
Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs counsel in advance of this filing, but received no response.
The information Artemus seeks to redact is very minimal and relates only to private
financial and business information. Rather than redact wholesale, Artemus redacted a few
financial figures and information related to its buyers, which is proprietary.
LEGAL STANDARD
cause,"
The Court may enter an order sealing court records where it finds "good having
parties."
considered "the interests of the public as well as of the 22 NYCRR 216.1(a). In
determining whether to seal documents, courts must balance legitimate needs for secrecy with the
5 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
public's right to access. See Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 A.D.3d 181, 191-92 (1st
Dep't 2010).
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs'
The Shagalov Affidavit and moving Brief in support of Motion 6 contain
"proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information or other information the
disclosure of which would ... be detrimental to the conduct of [the parties'] business or personal
affairs," Information"
which qualifies as "Confidential under ¶ 3(a) of the Confidentiality Order.
Artemus is engaged in a highly competitive business. See Edelman Affidavit ¶ 3. The information
at issue includes Artemus's financial and private business information, including client-identifying
data, which is proprietary business information that is highly sensitive. See generally Edelman
Affidavit. See also Matter of Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 2006 WL 399766, at *8
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006) (Bransten, J.) (finding good cause to seal records that included
sensitive proprietary and business information); see also D'Amour v. Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP,
party'
2007 WL 4126386, *21 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2007) (sealing documents that concerned a party's
finances).
The sealing request is limited to a few redacted numbers and certain private business
information, including client-identifying information, and thus "[t]here is no countervailing public
disclosure"
interest that would be furthered by ... of the Confidential Information in these
documents. JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson, 2010 WL 6781684, *6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov.
22, 2010) (Bransten, J.);S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, at 2006 WL 399766 at *8. The request is
narrowly tailored to protect the private business information in Artemus's filings, while
maintaining the public's access to almost the entire submission. See Applehead Pictures LLC, 80
6 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
A.D.3d at 193 (affirming the denial of a party's request to seal documents annexed to a set of
motion"
motion papers because the party "sought sealing of the entire record of the and noting that
"if [the party] had filed those documents separately, and sought a limited order requesting that the
confidentiality of those documents be maintained, such relief could appropriately have been
granted"). Artemus's proposed redactions are consistent with this Court's Oral Order on June 26,
2018. For example, to the extent Artemus seeks to redact a number, the dollar signs are left in.
Moreover, where account numbers are redacted, the last 3 digits remain and there are spaces to
indicate that itwas an account number.
Artemus's interest in maintaining the privacy of their non-public, proprietary data
outweighs any public interest which might be furthered by public access to such data. Artemus
further submits that there is minimal, if any, public interest in Artemus's internal finances and
("
private business information. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2010 WL 6781684, *6 ("Sealing records
may be particularly appropriate, moreover, when the parties wish to maintain the confidentiality
finances'
of materials that 'for the most part involve the internal of a party and do not implicate
any matters of public interest.") (citing Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudolf, 152
Misc. 2d 812, 816 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1991) (sealing information related to the internal finances
Defendants'
of firm), aff'd sub nom. Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudoff, 183 A.D.2d
678 (1st Dep't 1992)); see also D'Amour, 2007 WL 4126386 at *21 (same).
7 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, Artemus respectfully requests that the Court grant itsMotion to
Seal.
Dated: New York, New York
July 9, 2018
WALDEN MACHT & HARAN LLP
Jim Walden
Georgia Winston
Amanda Senske
One Battery Park Plaza
34*
34 Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 335-2031
Attorneys for Defendants
5
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ANATOLE SHAGALOV and NATURE MORTE LLC Index No. 655576/17 Plaintiffs ' Motion Sequence No. 7 Justice Eileen Bransten -against- ASHER EDELMAN, ARTEMUS USA LLC, EDELMAN ARTS, INC., JOHN DOE 1-20, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Jim Walden Georgia Winston Amanda Senske Walden Macht & Haran LLP One Battery Park Plaza 34th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 335-2030 Attorneys for Defendants 1 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 Table of Contents A RY TEMENT S T APRELIMW 1 .................................................................................................... AC TU AL B AC R OF D ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• L A L T A NDS ALE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• AR UMENT •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CO C LU I ONNS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • 1 2 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 Table of Authorities Cases Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 A.D.3d 181 (1st Dep't ............................................................................................. 4 2010)............................................................................................. 3, D'Amour v. Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, 2007 WL 4126386 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4 2007)........................................................................ ........................................................................ 3, Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudoff, 183 A.D.2d 678 (1st Dep't ............................................................................................... 4 1992)............................................................................................... Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudolf, 152 Misc. 2d 812 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4 1991).............................................................................. .............................................................................. JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson, 2010 WL 6781684 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 22, ......................................................... 4 2010)......................................................... 3, Matter of Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 2006 WL 399766 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006)................................................................... 3 ................................................................... Statutes 22 NYCRR 2 216........................................................................................................................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1, .. 11 3 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 Defendants Asher Edelman, Artemus USA LLC and Edelman Arts, Inc. (collectively, "Artemus"), by their attorneys Walden Macht & Haran LLP, respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion to Seal by Order to Show Cause, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1(a). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Artemus submits this motion to permanently seal confidential information contained within Plaintiffs Anatole Shagalov and Nature Morte LLC's Motion for Interim Relief by Order to Show ("Plaintiffs' Cause, Motion Sequence No. 6 (Dkt. 172) Motion 6"). Pursuant to the Stipulation (" Order" and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information ("Confidentiality "Order" Information" or "Order") in this case, Artemus seeks to redact as "Confidential certain financial Plaintiffs' and business proprietary information included in Plaintiffs Motion 6. Now, as further required by the Court's Individual Rules and Confidentiality Order, Artemus moves this Court by order to show cause to permanently seal such Confidential Information. Courts frequently recognize that not all information filed in court should be subject to Plaintiffs' public disclosure. Motion 6 includes Artemus's proprietary, non-public financial and business data. Such data qualifies as Confidential Information pursuant to the Confidentiality Order because itis proprietary and highly sensitive, and the disclosure of such information would be detrimental to Artemus's business affairs. As a result, Artemus seeks to have itredacted from Plaintiffs' Motion 6. Because the amount of material redacted by Artemus is nominal and relates only to its private financial and business data, the interests of the public are not harmed as the overwhelming Plaintiffs' majority of Plaintiffs Motion 6 is open to public access. Moreover, the proposed redactions are I 4 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 consistent with this Court's Oral Order on June 26, 2018 in connection with its decision on Motion Sequence No. 5, which was also a sealing motion. This Court should therefore grant Artemus's Motion to Seal. FACTUALBACKGROUND On July 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Interim Relief by Order to Show Cause (see Plaintiffs' Motion Sequence No. 6, NYSCEF Dkt. 172). In support of Plaintiffs Motion 6, Plaintiffs Affidavit" submitted an affidavit (the "Shagalov Affidavit"), a Memorandum of Law in support ofits Motion, and 3 exhibits which contain Artemus's sensitive, proprietary information that qualifies as Information" "Confidential under the Confidentiality Order previously entered by this Court. Plaintiffs' During the July 5, 2018 hearing, Plaintiffs counsel stated that he does not have any redaction issues and thus would not be moving to seal. (See Transcript at pg. 27, lines 16-17) (Dkt. 181). Per this Court's rules, Artemus's counsel sent a chart of Artemus's proposed redactions to Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs counsel in advance of this filing, but received no response. The information Artemus seeks to redact is very minimal and relates only to private financial and business information. Rather than redact wholesale, Artemus redacted a few financial figures and information related to its buyers, which is proprietary. LEGAL STANDARD cause," The Court may enter an order sealing court records where it finds "good having parties." considered "the interests of the public as well as of the 22 NYCRR 216.1(a). In determining whether to seal documents, courts must balance legitimate needs for secrecy with the 5 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 public's right to access. See Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 A.D.3d 181, 191-92 (1st Dep't 2010). ARGUMENT Plaintiffs' The Shagalov Affidavit and moving Brief in support of Motion 6 contain "proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information or other information the disclosure of which would ... be detrimental to the conduct of [the parties'] business or personal affairs," Information" which qualifies as "Confidential under ¶ 3(a) of the Confidentiality Order. Artemus is engaged in a highly competitive business. See Edelman Affidavit ¶ 3. The information at issue includes Artemus's financial and private business information, including client-identifying data, which is proprietary business information that is highly sensitive. See generally Edelman Affidavit. See also Matter of Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 2006 WL 399766, at *8 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006) (Bransten, J.) (finding good cause to seal records that included sensitive proprietary and business information); see also D'Amour v. Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, party' 2007 WL 4126386, *21 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2007) (sealing documents that concerned a party's finances). The sealing request is limited to a few redacted numbers and certain private business information, including client-identifying information, and thus "[t]here is no countervailing public disclosure" interest that would be furthered by ... of the Confidential Information in these documents. JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson, 2010 WL 6781684, *6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 22, 2010) (Bransten, J.);S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, at 2006 WL 399766 at *8. The request is narrowly tailored to protect the private business information in Artemus's filings, while maintaining the public's access to almost the entire submission. See Applehead Pictures LLC, 80 6 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 A.D.3d at 193 (affirming the denial of a party's request to seal documents annexed to a set of motion" motion papers because the party "sought sealing of the entire record of the and noting that "if [the party] had filed those documents separately, and sought a limited order requesting that the confidentiality of those documents be maintained, such relief could appropriately have been granted"). Artemus's proposed redactions are consistent with this Court's Oral Order on June 26, 2018. For example, to the extent Artemus seeks to redact a number, the dollar signs are left in. Moreover, where account numbers are redacted, the last 3 digits remain and there are spaces to indicate that itwas an account number. Artemus's interest in maintaining the privacy of their non-public, proprietary data outweighs any public interest which might be furthered by public access to such data. Artemus further submits that there is minimal, if any, public interest in Artemus's internal finances and (" private business information. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2010 WL 6781684, *6 ("Sealing records may be particularly appropriate, moreover, when the parties wish to maintain the confidentiality finances' of materials that 'for the most part involve the internal of a party and do not implicate any matters of public interest.") (citing Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudolf, 152 Misc. 2d 812, 816 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1991) (sealing information related to the internal finances Defendants' of firm), aff'd sub nom. Feffer v. Goodkind, Wechsler, Labaton & Rudoff, 183 A.D.2d 678 (1st Dep't 1992)); see also D'Amour, 2007 WL 4126386 at *21 (same). 7 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018 09:06 PM INDEX NO. 655576/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2018 CONCLUSION For the reasons given, Artemus respectfully requests that the Court grant itsMotion to Seal. Dated: New York, New York July 9, 2018 WALDEN MACHT & HARAN LLP Jim Walden Georgia Winston Amanda Senske One Battery Park Plaza 34* 34 Floor New York, New York 10004 (212) 335-2031 Attorneys for Defendants 5 8 of 8