Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC

Filing 66

ORDER temporarily granting 63 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 63. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/13/23) (yv)

Ronald C. Minkoff
28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005
T [phone]

F [phone]

[e-mail]

The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess
whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when
deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed
to terminate ECF No. 63.

November 10, 2023

SO ORDERED.

VIA ECF
Honorable Jesse M. Furman
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Centre Street, Room 2202
New York, New York 10007

November 13, 2023

Re:

Sealing Portions of Reply in Support of Motion to Compel in
Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, 23 Civ. 7527 (JMF)

Dear Judge Furman:
We represent Third-Party Interpleader Defendants McKinsey & Co., Inc.,
McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey Holdings, Inc., and McKinsey
Recovery & Transformation Services U.S. LLC (collectively, “McKinsey”). Pursuant to
Rule 7(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases (“Indiv. Rules”),
McKinsey hereby seeks leave to file under seal portions of its Reply in Further Support of its
Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “Reply”).
The Reply contains information related to the legal representation of McKinsey and
others by Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC (“Selendy”). The Reply also discusses matters that
McKinsey contends are subject to confidential arbitration and that are not properly addressed in
this forum. These are the same grounds on which the Court previously ordered the sealing of
portions of McKinsey’s motion to compel arbitration. See Order dated October 10, 2023 (Dkt.
No. 50); see also Dkt. Nos. 22, 37, 59. See also, e.g., Stafford v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No.
22-1240, 2023 WL 5183546, at *5 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2023) (sealing warranted for judicial
documents subject to confidential arbitration); Guyden v. Aetna, Inc., 544 F.3d 376, 385 (2d Cir.
2008) (confidentiality is “a paradigmatic aspect of arbitration.”); Johnson v. Medisys Health
Network, No. 10-CV-1596 ERK VVP, 2011 WL 5222917, at *22-25 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011),
report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. CV-10-1596 ERK VVP, 2011 WL
4101323 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2011) (redacting and sealing confidential information discussed
during an attorney-client relationship, which “is broader than the scope of the attorney-client
privilege”) (cleaned up).
With respect to the Reply, McKinsey has proposed redactions to cover confidential
material subject to arbitration, while allowing public access to other aspects of the Reply.
McKinsey submits that such an approach appropriately balances the need for public access with

Honorable Jesse M. Furman
November 10, 2023
Page -2McKinsey’s interest in protecting its confidential attorney-client information, and the
confidentiality of arbitration. See Indiv. Rule 7(B).
Respectfully submitted,
FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C.

By:

/s/ Ronald C. Minkoff
Ronald C. Minkoff

Counsel for McKinsey & Company, Inc.,
McKinsey & Company Inc. United States,
McKinsey Holdings Inc., and McKinsey
Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC
cc:

All counsel of record (via ECF)