Ghoulam v. Bentivoglio

Ghoulam v Bentivoglio 2025 NY Slip Op 31691(U) May 9, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650061/2025 Judge: Joel M. Cohen 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. 650061/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 173 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X FAOUZI GHOULAM, FG INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., INDEX NO. 650061/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 02/07/2025 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 FABRIZIO ARENGI BENTIVOGLIO, FIDIA CAPITAL, LLC, MORROW SODALI GLOBAL LLC DECISION + ORDER ON Defendants. MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. JOEL M. COHEN: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT .

Defendants Fabrizio Arengi Bentivoglio and Fidia Capital, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) move for an order sealing certain documents filed in this action as NYSCEF Document Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, and 72, and permitting Defendants to file redacted versions of the same. Defendants’ motion is unopposed. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted in part.

Pursuant to § 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing “upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties” (22 NYCRR § 216.1[a]).

The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002

Defendants seek to redact account numbers listed in the bank statements filed as NYSCEF Document Nos. 62-66. Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.5, the parties are required to redact all but the last four digits of bank account numbers in public filings whether or not a sealing order has been sought (22 NYCRR § 202.5 [e] [1] [iv]). Accordingly, Defendants are permitted to redact all but the last four digits of the bank account numbers in these documents.

Defendants also seek to redact certain transactions listed in the bank statements filed as NYSCEF Document Nos. 62-65, namely those not referenced by Plaintiffs in their moving papers in support of their motion for interim relief (Mot. Seq. 1). Defendants provide no compelling circumstances to justify these redactions; rather, they merely assert that the transactions are of little public interest. This does not comport with the applicable sealing standards as laid out in Mosallem (76 AD3d at 348-50), and its progeny.

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002

Defendants also seek to maintain Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in support of their motion for interim relief in the redacted format in which it was filed (see NYSCEF 60 [“Reply Memo”]). This request is based in part on the memorandum’s references to confidential financial statements, which Defendants state may have been obtained improperly (NYSCEF 69 [Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Sealing Motion] at 2 n. 2). However, Defendants disclaim that they seek to redact the financial statements themselves, which were publicly filed to the docket (id.; see NYSCEF 33). Additional redactions in the Reply Memo pertain to certain transactions detailed in the bank statements discussed above. Defendants, however, only seek to redact portions of the bank statements that were not referenced in Plaintiffs’ moving papers.

Defendants do not establish that the information is sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction under Mosallem (76 AD3d at 348-50) and its progeny.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is granted in part; it is further ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Numbers 62-66 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file copies of the documents filed as NYSCEF 62-66 with the redactions required under 22 NYCRR § 202.5(e)(1)(iv) within 30 days of the date of this decision and order; it is further ORDERED that the County Clerk is directed to unseal the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 71 and 72; it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk’s Office within five (5) days of the date of this Order, and such service shall be made in accordance with 650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

5/9/2025 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

650061/2025 GHOULAM, FAOUZI ET AL vs. BENTIVOGLIO, FABRIZIO ARENGI ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002