ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in the Eastern District of Missouri has denied motions seeking to keep a court-appointed receiver’s preliminary report under seal, ruling that the parties failed to overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial records.
In a memorandum and order dated March 16, U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp rejected both Jason Buhlinger’s motion for leave to file his preliminary report under seal and Michael Cosby’s motion for continued sealing, though the denials were issued without prejudice to allow for renewed, more narrowly tailored requests.
The dispute centers on a preliminary report prepared by Buhlinger, who was appointed by the court in June 2025 as receiver for Visionary Private Equity Group I (VPEG) and Visionary Fund Manager.
The court had directed Buhlinger to compile financial information, including monthly cash receipts and disbursements dating back to January 2021, as well as reports on assets, liabilities, and inventories.
Although Buhlinger indicated he did not believe the report required sealing, he filed it under seal out of caution due to the contentious nature of the litigation and concerns raised by other parties.
Following that filing, the court ordered defendants to justify continued sealing with specific legal and factual arguments.
Cosby, the only defendant to respond, argued the report contains sensitive financial and business information, including bank account details, vendor information, operating costs, tax data and investment strategies.
He maintained that such information has historically been treated as confidential and should remain shielded from public access.
However, the court found Cosby’s arguments insufficient, noting that while private financial information can warrant protection, parties seeking to seal records must also address the competing public interest in access to judicial documents.
The court noted that Cosby failed to meaningfully analyze how those competing interests should be balanced.
Schelp concluded that the public’s right of access outweighed the confidentiality concerns in this case, particularly because the information in the preliminary report is directly related to the core issues in the litigation, including VPEG’s financial condition and the actions of its officers.
The court stated that such information is likely to play a significant role in the proceedings and is therefore of substantial value to the public in evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of the judicial process.
Even if some portions of the report contained sensitive material, the court found no justification for sealing the document in its entirety. Instead, it suggested that limited, targeted redactions might be appropriate if properly supported.
The court has given the parties until March 30 to file a renewed motion for continued sealing that adequately balances the competing interests and proposes specific redactions.
If no such motion is filed, the court will lift the seal and make the report and related documents publicly available, subject to a mandatory 14-day stay.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:25-cv-00132
