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 RTW’s motion to seal sensitive business information in an exhibit.
RTW Investments, LP’s confidential business information was protected from public disclosure in the specified exhibit; Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. and the public were affected by the sealing order.
What happened
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. concerned RTW Investments, LP’s request to keep sealed an unredacted exhibit filed with Lexeo’s reply. The exhibit contained a letter discussing RTW’s confidential document production and business operations.
RTW argued that public disclosure could reveal sensitive business strategy, harm its competitive position, and repeat what it described as an inaccurate characterization of its document use. Lexeo took no position, and a redacted version had been filed publicly.
The court granted the letter motion to seal, finding that RTW met its burden under applicable precedent. Judge Castel’s ruling kept the redacted portions of the exhibit under seal.
The detailed version
- Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-09000
- P. Castel
- Feb. 21, 2025
Background
RTW Investments, LP and Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. jointly submitted a letter concerning Exhibit C to Lexeo’s reply. RTW asked the court to keep the unredacted version of Exhibit C under seal. The exhibit was correspondence from Lexeo’s counsel to Rocket’s counsel dated February 5, 2025. Lexeo had filed a redacted version publicly.
Parties’ Positions
RTW argued that a statement in the exhibit made a disputed characterization of RTW’s highly confidential document production and business operations. According to RTW, the statement revealed sensitive information about its business strategy and how it used highly confidential documents. RTW also argued that public disclosure of the disputed characterization would cause additional harm. RTW said the public redactions were the least restrictive means of protecting its information. Lexeo took no position on the request.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court stated that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access, but may be sealed when specific findings show that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored. The court concluded that RTW met its burden under the applicable precedent for sealing the redacted portions of Exhibit C.
The letter motion to seal was granted. The order maintained the redacted portions of the document filed at ECF No. 213-1 under seal, while the redacted version remained filed at ECF No. 214-1. Judge Castel issued the ruling according to the supplied case metadata.
Effect
The ruling concerned access to the specified exhibit; the opinion text does not state that it resolved the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.