Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2025

Hernandez v. Zenlen, Inc.

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:24-cv-04846
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Hernandez v. Zenlen, Inc., Judge Cote granted Zenlen’s request to file a clinical testing report under seal.

Who this affects

Zenlen, Inc., Hernandez, the parties’ counsel, and public access to Exhibit A.

What happened

In Hernandez v. Zenlen, Inc., Zenlen asked the Southern District of New York for permission to file a clinical testing report under seal. The report was referenced in Hernandez’s amended complaint and attached to a declaration as Exhibit A.

Zenlen said the report contained proprietary, commercially sensitive, and highly confidential business information, including clinical testing protocols and methods. It argued that public disclosure could harm its business interests and place it at a competitive disadvantage. Zenlen also stated that it had provided the information to Hernandez’s counsel under a nondisclosure agreement.

Judge Denise Cote granted Zenlen’s request to file Exhibit A under seal. The opinion text does not provide a separate explanation beyond the court’s notation granting the letter motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hernandez v. Zenlen, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04846
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Feb. 3, 2025

Motion

Zenlen, Inc. filed a letter motion under Rule 8(B) of Judge Cote’s Individual Rules and Practices seeking permission to file Exhibit A under seal. Exhibit A was a clinical testing report referenced in paragraph 24 of Hernandez’s amended complaint and attached to the declaration of Andrew Leff. The report had been filed electronically under seal in connection with the motion.

Requested protection

Zenlen asserted that Exhibit A contained proprietary, commercially sensitive, and highly confidential business information, including clinical testing protocols and methodology. Zenlen argued that disclosure would harm its business interests and create a competitive disadvantage. It also stated that the information had been produced to Hernandez’s counsel under a signed nondisclosure agreement requiring the information to remain confidential and not be disclosed to third parties.

Ruling

The court granted the letter motion to file Exhibit A under seal. The provided text does not state that the court made any additional findings or impose any conditions on the sealing order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.