Factor75, LLC v. Ruprecht Company
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-04094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Factor75, LLC v. Ruprecht Company, Judge Moses denied Factor’s request to keep its complaint sealed and required public refiling.
Factor 75, LLC, Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., and Ruprecht Company were affected by the orders concerning public access to the complaint, answer, and counterclaims.
What happened
In Factor75, LLC v. Ruprecht Company, Factor 75, LLC and Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. asked to keep their complaint under seal because they feared violating a confidentiality provision in their agreement with Ruprecht Company. Ruprecht said it took no position on keeping the complaint sealed.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ sealing request and ordered them to refile the complaint publicly by August 23, 2024. The court also directed the parties to discuss whether specific portions of Ruprecht’s answer and counterclaims should be redacted. By the same deadline, Ruprecht had to either agree to lift the temporary seal or file a focused request to keep particular information confidential.
Judge Moses issued the order, which addressed access to court filings rather than the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Factor75, LLC v. Ruprecht Company · No. 1:24-cv-04094
- John Cronan
- Aug. 9, 2024
Background
Factor 75, LLC and Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., referred to together as Factor, filed the case after first seeking permission to file their complaint entirely under seal. Factor said it was acting cautiously because the parties’ Master Supply Agreement contained a confidentiality provision. The complaint remained temporarily sealed while Factor’s sealing request was pending.
Ruprecht Company filed its answer and counterclaims under temporary seal and asked to keep that filing sealed. Ruprecht said the counterclaims disclosed nonpublic, confidential competitive business information, but it did not identify the information or explain why the entire filing needed to remain sealed. Ruprecht requested time to confer with Factor before submitting a narrower request covering specific portions.
Ruling
The court denied Factor’s sealing application. It reasoned that Factor had filed the complaint under seal only out of caution and fear of Ruprecht’s response, while Ruprecht took no position on maintaining the complaint’s seal. The court ordered Factor to refile the complaint publicly no later than August 23, 2024.
For Ruprecht’s answer and counterclaims, the court ordered the parties to promptly meet and discuss whether any portions justified redaction under the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions. By August 23, 2024, Ruprecht had to either tell the court that the temporary seal could be lifted or file a tailored sealing application meeting the court’s requirements. The order did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.