Kalampoukas v. Kroll, LLC

Full text

Kalampoukas v Kroll, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30701(U) March 1, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159024/2025 Judge: Andrea Masley 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.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS¹/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1590242025.NEW_YORK.002.LBLX000_TO.html[03/10/2026 3:45:51 PM]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 159024/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X LAMPROS KALAMPOUKAS, INDEX NO. 159024/2025

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE -- -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 008 KROLL, LLC,

Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107 were read on this motion to/for SEAL .

In motion sequence 008 defendant Kroll, LLC (Kroll) moves pursuant to the

Uniform Rules of the New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1 to seal/redact

the following documents (see NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 97, Order to Show Cause):

1. May 8, 2025 Letter of Joint Engagement (NYSCEF 271); and

2. June 18, 2025 Valuation Report (NYSCEF 282).

Specifically, Kroll argues that good cause exists to seal/redact because the documents

contain (i) confidential pricing information that risks competitive harm to Kroll if publicly

disclosed and (ii) financially sensitive information about non-party Alphonso, Inc.

(Alphonso). (See NYSCEF 96, MOL at 2-3.) The motion is unopposed. There is no

indication that the press or public have an interest in this matter.

1 Proposed redactions are filed under seal at NYSCEF 99. A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 100. 2 Proposed redactions are filed under seal at NYSCEF 101. A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 102. 159024/2025 KALAMPOUKAS, LAMPROS vs. KROLL, LLC Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 008

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 159024/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026

Footnotes

[1] of 4 [* 1] Legal Standard “Under New York law, 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] [citations omitted].) The public’s right to access is, however, not absolute, and under certain circumstances, “public inspection of court records has been limited by numerous statutes.” (Id. at 349.) For example, § 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, empowers courts to seal documents only upon a written finding of good cause. It provides: “Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except 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. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.” (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 216.1 [a].) The “party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” to the documents. (Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 349 [citations omitted].) Good cause must “rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” (Danco Lab Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Discussion Kroll seeks to redact NYSCEF 27 and 28 on the grounds that these documents contain confidential and sensitive financial information about Kroll and non-party Alphonso, which could undermine these parties’ competitive advantage if made publicly available. (See NYSCEF 98, Proposed Sealing Chart.) Courts have sealed records 159024/2025 KALAMPOUKAS, LAMPROS vs. KROLL, LLC Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 008

[2] of 4 [* 2] where the disclosure of documents “could threaten a business’s competitive advantage.” (Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 350-351 [citations omitted].) Similarly, courts have recognized a compelling interest in sealing records that contain “proprietary financial information because disclosure could harm the private corporation’s competitive standing.” (Mancheski v Gabrielli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 [2d Dept 2007] [citation omitted].) Here, the proposed redactions are warranted to protect Kroll and non-party Alphonso from competitive harm, especially since there is no public interest in these documents. (See Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 350-351; Mancheski, 39 AD3d at 502.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that motion sequence 008 is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the County Clerk, upon service of this order, is directed to seal NYSCEF 27, 28, 99, and 101; and it is further ORDERED that the County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed documents with access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees, the parties and counsel of record in this action, and any representative of a party or of counsel of record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from counsel; and it is further ORDERED that Kroll shall serve a copy of this order on the County Clerk in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further 159024/2025 KALAMPOUKAS, LAMPROS vs. KROLL, LLC Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 008

[3] of 4 [* 3] ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed sealing order to the court (via sfc-part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing another seal motion; and it is further ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for the purposes of trial or other court proceedings on the record, e.g. arguments on motions. 3/1/2026 DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION □ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER □ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 159024/2025 KALAMPOUKAS, LAMPROS vs. KROLL, LLC Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 008

[4] of 4 [* 4]