360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-00767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 360 N. Rodeo v. Wells Fargo, Judge Subramanian entered a “SO ORDERED” endorsement on Plaintiff’s request to seal one exhibit.
360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP, LoanCore as the third-party producing party, and public access to the exhibit.
What happened
360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP asked the court to let it file Exhibit 30 to its opposition to Defendants’ summary-judgment motion under seal. The exhibit contained internal business communications that LoanCore, a third party, had designated confidential under a protective order.
Plaintiff said it had asked LoanCore to remove the confidentiality designation or permit a public filing, but LoanCore refused. Plaintiff relied on the court’s three-step process for deciding whether court records should be sealed and argued that the material may contain sensitive business information.
The filing bears Judge Arun Subramanian’s “SO ORDERED” endorsement dated June 17, 2024. The provided text does not state in words whether the motion to seal was granted or denied, or otherwise specify the terms of the order in addition to that endorsement.
The detailed version
- 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association · No. 1:22-cv-00767
- Subramanian
- June 17, 2024
Background
Plaintiff 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP filed a letter-motion asking for permission to file Exhibit 30 to the Declaration of Richard A. Schwartz under seal. The exhibit was submitted in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
LoanCore, identified as the third-party producing party, had designated the exhibit confidential under the case’s confidentiality protective order. Plaintiff described the exhibit as containing internal business communications. The protective order allowed parties to designate certain sensitive discovery materials as confidential and stated that materials with that designation could be filed under seal without permission from the designating party or a court order.
Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff stated that it had met and conferred with LoanCore about the exhibit. According to Plaintiff, LoanCore refused both to remove the confidentiality designation and to allow a filing that was not under seal. Plaintiff said LoanCore appeared to believe the documents contained sensitive business information that could justify confidential treatment. Plaintiff therefore requested sealing “out of an abundance of caution.”
Legal Standard Discussed
The letter described the Second Circuit’s three-step framework for sealing requests. First, the court determines whether the material is a judicial record subject to a presumption of public access. Second, it determines how much weight that presumption deserves based on how much the material affects the court’s decision. Third, it balances the presumption of public access against competing interests favoring nondisclosure.
Order
The document contains Judge Arun Subramanian’s “SO ORDERED” endorsement dated June 17, 2024. The provided opinion text does not separately state whether the motion was granted or denied, identify the precise relief ordered, or provide additional findings about Exhibit 30. Accordingly, the exact disposition beyond the “SO ORDERED” endorsement is unclear from the supplied text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.