PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-05649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In PRCM Advisers v. Two Harbors, Judge Moses ordered the parties to propose limited redactions to forthcoming sealed rulings.
PRCM Advisers LLC and the other plaintiffs, Two Harbors Investment Corp., and the parties’ submissions containing sealed evidence.
What happened
In PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., the court said it would soon issue, temporarily under seal, rulings on the parties’ requests for summary judgment and to exclude expert opinions.
Because those rulings discuss evidence filed under seal, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith within two weeks after the rulings are issued. They must then email proposals identifying any redactions needed before the rulings are publicly filed.
Judge Barbara Moses emphasized that redactions should be kept to a minimum because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. This order did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment or expert-evidence motions.
The detailed version
- PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-05649
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 31, 2025
What the order addressed
The court stated that it would shortly issue two rulings under temporary seal: a Report and Recommendation concerning the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and an Opinion and Order resolving their cross-motions to exclude various expert opinions. The court said both rulings discuss documentary evidence and testimony that the parties had filed under seal.
Required next steps
Within two weeks after the Report and Recommendation and Opinion and Order are issued, the parties must meet and confer in good faith. They must then submit, by email, proposals identifying any redactions they believe should be made before those rulings are publicly filed on the docket.
Public access
The court instructed the parties to minimize redactions wherever possible because of the strong presumption that the public may access judicial documents. The order did not decide the cross-motions for summary judgment or the cross-motions concerning expert opinions; it addressed the process for reviewing possible redactions to the forthcoming rulings.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.