Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-09000
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rocket Pharmaceuticals v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Judge Castel granted a motion to seal an exhibit containing alleged trade-secret information.
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., whose asserted confidential information will remain sealed in Exhibit D; Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc.; and members of the public seeking access to the sealed court filing.
What happened
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. concerned Rocket’s request to keep Exhibit D to its reply under seal. Rocket said the exhibit contained confidential information about an AAV drug-preparation protocol, and Lexeo did not oppose sealing it.
Rocket argued that public disclosure could harm its competitive position because the exhibit contained technical, nonpublic information. Lexeo disagreed that the exhibit reflected Rocket’s trade secrets but did not oppose keeping it sealed.
Judge P. Castel granted the motion to seal after reviewing the public and sealed versions and finding that Rocket had met its legal burden.
The detailed version
- Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-09000
- P. Castel
- Feb. 7, 2025
Background
Rocket filed a letter motion asking the court to seal Exhibit D to Rocket’s reply. The exhibit was filed as ECF No. 182-1, with a redacted version filed as ECF No. 183-1. Rocket stated that Exhibit D was a Lexeo document nearly identical to another document that the court had already sealed. According to Rocket, both documents contained Rocket’s trade-secret information concerning an adeno-associated virus drug-preparation protocol.
Rocket argued that Exhibit D contained an internal, nonpublic protocol with highly technical information and that disclosure could competitively harm Rocket. Lexeo disagreed with Rocket’s characterization of the information as Rocket’s trade secrets, but Lexeo did not oppose keeping Exhibit D under seal.
Legal standard
The court applied the presumption that the public may inspect and copy judicial records. It considered whether the document was a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and whether countervailing interests outweighed that presumption. The court recognized that protecting sensitive commercial information from competitors can justify sealing when the sealing is necessary and narrowly tailored.
Ruling
The court stated that it had carefully reviewed the redacted and unredacted versions of Exhibit D and was satisfied that Rocket had met its burden under applicable precedent. The court therefore granted the letter motion to seal, ECF No. 189. The opinion does not state that the entire case or any claim was resolved by this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.