Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Wander

Background

Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP and Leadenhall Life Insurance Linked Investments Fund PLC asked for permission to file a redacted reply supporting their applications for a temporary restraining order and for an order requiring the defendants to show cause why a receiver or, alternatively, a preliminary injunction should be ordered. They also asked to file the unredacted reply under seal, meaning it would not be available to the public through the ordinary court file.

The 777 defendants and the A-CAP defendants had filed opposition papers concerning Leadenhall’s request for preliminary relief. The A-CAP defendants filed papers with redactions, while the 777 defendants filed their opposition papers and supporting documents entirely under seal. The court had previously granted the defendants’ motions to seal those materials.

Requested Redactions

Leadenhall said it sought to redact information that the A-CAP defendants had redacted and information about the 777 defendants’ businesses that Leadenhall believed was not public. Leadenhall stated that it had no independent basis for seeking a sealing order for that material, but wanted to give the defendants an opportunity to explain why the material should remain sealed and to seek a sealing order. Leadenhall also reserved the right to oppose any later sealing requests and to seek unsealing of material already filed under seal.

Ruling

The court granted Leadenhall’s application. The opinion does not state that the court made a final decision about whether the disputed information should remain under seal, whether the proposed redactions were proper, or whether any previously sealed material should be made public.