The opinion
Moore Charitable Found. v PJT Partners, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 34544(U)
December 19, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 654584/2017
Judge: Margaret A. Chan
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 654584/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 241 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 49M
--------------------------------X
THE MOORE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, KENDALL INDEX NO. 654584/2017
JMAC, LLC,
06/20/2024,
Plaintiffs, MOTION DATE 07/01/2024
- V-
MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 003
PJT PARTNERS, INC.,PARK HILL GROUP,
LLC,ANDREW W.W. CASPERSEN DECISION+ ORDER ON
Defendants. MOTION
--------------,------------------------------------X
HON. MARGARET A. CHAN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 191, 192, 193, 194,
195,196,197,198,200,216,217,218,219
were read on this motion to/for SEAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 209,210,211,212,
213,214,227,228,230,231
were read on this motion to/for SEAL
This action arises from an alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by
defendant Andrew Caspersen against the plaintiffs during his tenure with
defendants PJT Partners, Inc. (PJT) and Park Hill Group LLC (Park Hill, and
together with PJT, the PJT defendants). The parties recently stipulated to
discontinue this action (NYSCEF #s 238, 239). Pursuant to those stipulations, this
case is discontinued with prejudice against the PJT defendants and without
prejudice against Caspersen.
However, two motions remain outstanding: the PJT defendants' two motions
to seal and redact various documents filed in support of two different Rule 14
disputes. In the first motion (MS 002), they ask to seal and redact plaintiffs' June
13, 2024 letter opposing the PJT defendants' request for a protective order to bar
the deposition of PJT CEO Paul Taubmann (June 13 Letter) (NYSCEF # 181),
Exhibits 2 through 5 to that letter (NYSCEF#s 183-186, 195-198), and the brief and
affirmations in support of this motion (NYSCEF #s 192-194). In the second motion
(MS 003), the PJT defendants ask to redact Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to plaintiffs June
24, 2024 letter opposing certain discovery request (June 24 th Letter) (NYSCEF #s
202-204, 212-214).
654584/2017 MOORE CHARITABLE vs. PJT PARTNERS, INC. Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 002 003
[* 1] 1 of 4
INDEX NO. 654584/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 241 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2024
Plaintiffs' June 13 Letter opposes the PJT defendants' request to bar the
deposition of Park Hill CEO Paul Taubman (NYSCEF # 181). The PJT defendants
request redactions to this letter. They did not actually file a document showing their
requested redactions, but given that plaintiffs filed the letter with redactions
already (see id.), presumably the PJT defendants are asking that those redactions
be upheld. The redacted portions contain information from the exhibits filed in
support, including Exhibits 2 through 5, which are at issue in the first motion to
seal.
Exhibit 2 to the June 13th Letter consists of a "copy of the PJT Defendants'
'Supervisory and Compliance Procedures"' dated December 9, 2014 (Compliance
Manual) (see NYSCEF #s 183, 195). The PJT defendants claim the Compliance
Manual "contains propriety business information about the PJT Defendants'
internal compliance framework," much of which is "still largely applicable today"
(NYSCEF # 192, PJT Defs. Br. in Support MS 002, at 3).
Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 to the June 13th Letter (NYSCEF #s 184-186, 196-198)
consist of communications between one of the PJT defendants and the SEC
regarding an SEC examination of the PJT defendants' "compliance process and
practices" in 2016 and 2017 (the SEC Communications) (see NYSCEF # 192, PJT
Defs. Br. in Support MS 002, at 3). The PJT defendants argue that the information
contained within was never publicly disclosed by the SEC, and doing so now "could
disrupt the PJT Defendants' business relationships with present and future clients,
potentially causing the PJT Defendants competitive harm" (id.). The PJT
defendants also claim the documents "contain confidential proprietary information
concerning the PJT Defendants' internal compliance processes, which could damage
the PJT Defendants' competitive standing" (id.). Finally, the PJT defendants argue
that the documents were filed for an improper purpose, namely, to retaliate against
the PJT defendants for filing certain Rule 14 letters in this action Cid. at 6).
As for Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the June 24 Letter, these documents consist of
discovery responses (the Discovery Responses) (NYSCEF #s 202-204, 212-214).
Exhibit 1 consists of PJT defendants' responses and objections to plaintiffs third set
of interrogatories (see NYSCEF #s 202, 212). Exhibit 2 consists of the PJT
defendants responses and objections to plaintiffs' second requests for admissions
(NYSCEF #s 203, 213). Exhibit 3 consists of the PJT defendants' responses and
objections to plaintiffs' second request for the production of documents (NYSCEF #s
204, 214). Each exhibit is currently redacted on NYSCEF. The PJT defendants ask
to keep these redactions because the redacted materials "quote from or paraphrase
the PJT Defendants' confidential communications with the SEC that are the subject
of the [first sealing motion, MS 002]" (NYSCEF # 210, PJT Defs' Br. in Support of
MS 003, at 2). The PJT defendants further argue that the relevant Rule 14 letter
did not concern the portions quoting the confidential communications from the SEC
(id.).
654584/2017 MOORE CHARITABLE vs. PJT PARTNERS, INC. Page 2 of4
Motion No. 002 003
[* 2] 2 of 4
INDEX NO. 654584/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 241 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2024
Upon review of the documents sought to be sealed and the proposed
redactions, which pertain to proprietary business information and are of minimal
public interest, the court finds that good cause exists for sealing and redacting
plaintiffs SJ Opp. Memo and Exhibits F-J under 216.1 of the Uniform Rules of Trial
Courts (see Dawson v ITTiite & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992] [sealing is
warranted in the absence of "any legitimate public concern, as opposed to mere
curiosity, to counter-balance the interest [a business'] partners and clients have in
keeping their financial arrangements private"]; D'Amour v Ohrenstein & Brown,
LLP, 17 Misc 3d 1130[A], *20 [Sup Ct, NY County 2007] ["Sealing a court file may
be appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of materials which involve the
internal finances of a party and are of minimal public interest"]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the PJT defendants' motion to seal and redact plaintiffs'
June 13, 2024 Rule 14 Letter and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 to that letter and the PJT
defendants' briefs and affirmations in support of this motion (NYSCEF #s 181, 183-
186, 192-198) is granted (MS 002); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed, upon service upon the
clerk of a copy of this Decision and Order with notice of entry, to seal plaintiffs'
June 13, 2024 Rule 14 Letter and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 to that letter and the PJT
defendants' briefs and affirmations in support of this motion (NYSCEF #s 181, 183-
186, 192-198); and it is further
ORDERED that the PJT defendants' motion to seal and redact Exhibits 1, 2,
and 3 to plaintiffs June 24, 2024 letter and the PJT defendants' briefs and
affirmations in support of this motion (NYSCEF #s 202-204, 210, 211, 212-214) is
granted (MS 003); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed, upon service upon the
clerk of a copy of this Decision and Order with notice of entry, to seal Exhibits 1, 2,
and 3 to plaintiffs June 24, 2024 letter and the PJT defendants' briefs and
affirmations in support of this motion (NYSCEF #s 202-204, 210, 211, 212-214); and
it is further
ORDERED that until further order of the court, the Clerk of the Court shall
deny access to the above documents (NYSCEF #s 181, 183-186, 192-198, 202-204,
210,211, 212·214), to anyone (other than the staff of the Clerk or the court) except
for counsel of record for any party to this action, any party, and any representative
of the counsel of record for a party upon presentation to the County Clerk of written
authorization from said counsel and appropriate identification; and it is further
ORDERED that service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County
654584/2017 MOORE CHARITABLE vs. PJT PARTNERS, INC. Page 3 of4
Motion No. 002 003
[* 3] 3 of 4
INDEX NO. 654584/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 241 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2024
Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E· Filing" page on
the court's website at the address www.nvcourts.gov/supctmanh).
12/19/2024
DATE MAR~
~ NON-FINAL OlSPOSITION
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED
□ DENIED
□
GRANTED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
654584/2017 MOORE CHARITABLE vs. PJT PARTNERS, INC. Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 002 003
4 of 4
[* 4]