World Business Lenders, LLC v. Pardes
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-01039
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In World Business Lenders v. Pardes, Judge Subramanian granted Pardes’s request to keep his unredacted answer under seal and file a redacted version publicly.
Robert Pardes and World Business Lenders, LLC, because the unredacted answer is to remain under seal and a redacted answer is to be filed publicly.
What happened
Robert Pardes, represented by counsel, asked the court to allow a redacted version of his answer, defenses, and counterclaim to be filed publicly while keeping the unredacted version under seal. He said the filing might contain information that World Business Lenders, LLC claimed was confidential or a trade secret.
World Business Lenders agreed that only the redacted answer should be publicly filed and that the unredacted answer should be sealed. The request concerned the filing of Pardes’s court papers, not the court’s decision on the underlying claims or counterclaim.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at Docket 30. The order is dated March 21, 2025.
The detailed version
- World Business Lenders, LLC v. Pardes · No. 1:25-cv-01039
- Subramanian
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
Defendant Robert Pardes asked for permission to file a redacted version of his answer, defenses, and counterclaim on the public docket while keeping the unredacted version under seal. The request sought to make the unredacted filing accessible only to World Business Lenders, LLC (WBL) and Pardes.
Pardes’s counsel said the answer might include information that WBL alleged was protected by a confidentiality agreement or constituted confidential business information or trade secrets. The letter referred to WBL’s claims that Pardes breached the confidentiality agreement and violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Counsel also stated that WBL supported publicly filing only the redacted answer and sealing the unredacted version.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 30. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on the merits of WBL’s claims, Pardes’s defenses, or Pardes’s counterclaim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.