Dardashtian et al v. Gitman et al

Filing 169

ORDER re: 167 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Seal: Plaintiffs' letter of July 14, 2020 (Dkt. 167-1) seeks the sealing of Exhibits A and B to defendants' July 10 Objection and paragraphs 26-32 of defendants' memorandum of law be removedfr om the public docket (id. p.7), as containing "highly sensitive confidential records of the Plaintiff Companies" and references to "sensitive and confidential business records " The application is denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 7/16/2020) (ml)

Case 1:17-cv-04327-LLS-RWL Document 169 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 2

[O RIG IN \ L

·USDC SONY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - -x

DOC #: _ _ _- - , 7 7 7 - . ·? //6/2,~
DATE FIL f-D:_~:_.:__--

MICHAEL DARDASHTIAN , et al .,
'

17 Civ . 43io/ . (LLS)

Plaintiffs ,
- against -

ORDER

DAVID GITMAN , et al.,
Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Plaintiffs '

letter of July 14 , 2020 (Dkt . 167 - 1) seeks the

sealing of Exhibits A and B to defendants' July 10 Objection and
paragraphs 26-32 of defendants' memorandum of law be removed
from the public docket

(id . p.7) , as containing "highly

sensitive confidential records of the Plaintiff Companies " and
references to "sensitive and confidential business records ." The
application is denied . The showing necessary for such
suppression is not apparent from a commonplace Confidentiality
Agreement , and must demonstrate how specific documents contain
genuinely secret matter whose disclosure would harm particular
valuable interests.
With regards to Exhibits A and B the application fails for
lack of specificity . Ex . A (Dkt . 163 - 3) is a 76 page expert's
report evaluating the fair value of Gitman ' s 50% interest in
Cooper Square Ventures as of three separate dates in 2017 - 20. It
is designed to be offered into evidence at the trial , as part of

- 1-

.,

Case 1:17-cv-04327-LLS-RWL Document 169 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 2

the expert ' s presentation . No particular pages or sections of
the report are specified , nor is any reason given for excluding
it from the public record , beyond the normal preference of any
business for privacy . Exhibit B (0kt . 163 - 4)
"rebuttal" report prepared by defendants '

is the 63 page

expert , with no

further specification of particularly confidential items .
Paragraphs 26 to 32 of defendants ' memorandum of law (0kt.
163-2) consist of defense counsel ' s summary of the rebuttal
expert testimony the defense is seeking to offer in evidence at
the trial . It is very general , primarily explaining why the
plaintiffs '

expert ' s method of valuation for the subject

company , the "direct capitalization valuation method ," is
inappropriate , and comparing it with other methods , such as the
"Guideline Public Company Method , the Guideline Merged and
Acquired Method and the income approach method ." The concepts
seem purely theoretical ; no specific facts or figures are
disclosed or discussed . Why it is highly confidential is left as
a mystery .
That does not approach the requirements of specificity and
secrecy for concealing from the public evidence to be submitted
in a court of law , to affect the jury 's verdict , and the
proposed redactions are denied .
So ordered .
Dated :

July 16, 2020

- 2-