On March 10, 2026, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in 100 & 130 Biscayne LLC v. EE NWT OM, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 30945(U), holding that a sealing order did not affect the admissibility of evidence at trial, explaining:
The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions in the Yormak Deposition Excerpts and finds the Defendants have made a sufficient showing that these documents contain sensitive non-public financial and personal information about Defendants’ passive third-party investors which Defendants maintain as confidential in the ordinary course of their business. Defendants have proposed and justified targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216.1 (a). However, as to information related to one specific individual investor, Richard Ruben, that had already become part of the public record, redaction is not granted. Defendants will need to refile any documents that have redacted information relating to Mr. Ruben.
While Plaintiff argues that, among other things, that it intends to argue at trial that Defendants willfully breached the Operating Agreement between OM and Biscayne in part by placing their own interests ahead of the interests of the Company as a whole and the identity of those investors and their relative capital commitments show who bore the real risk related to the Project and are important for Biscayne’s presentation of its case, the Court’s sealing orders clarify that “nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.” Any request to seal materials at trial or in any other public court proceeding must be sought by separate motion.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).