Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2025

PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:20-cv-05649
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In PRCM Advisers v. Two Harbors, Magistrate Judge Moses rejected proposed redactions and ordered public filing of an unredacted expert-opinion order.

Who this affects

The parties to the case, particularly Two Harbors Investment Corp. and PRCM Advisers LLC, were affected by the ruling on public access to the sealed documents and proposed redactions.

What happened

PRCM Advisers LLC and Two Harbors Investment Corp. submitted proposals about redacting two sealed documents: a report and recommendation on their summary-judgment motions and an order concerning expert opinions.

The court accepted most proposed redactions to the report and recommendation and said it would file a redacted version publicly. It rejected both proposed redactions to the expert-opinion order because they described software and an expert’s view only at a high level, without technical detail.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses ordered that an unredacted version of the expert-opinion order would be filed publicly on May 1, 2025, unless a party first submitted a letter brief showing why the redactions should be allowed.

The detailed version

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

Case
PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-05649
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Apr. 17, 2025

What the order addressed

The court reviewed the parties’ proposals for redacting two documents that were under seal: a report and recommendation concerning the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and an opinion and order concerning the parties’ cross-motions to exclude various expert opinions.

Rulings on the proposed redactions

The court accepted most of the requested redactions to the report and recommendation and stated that it would soon file a redacted version on the public docket.

The court rejected both proposed redactions to the opinion and order concerning the expert opinions. Applying the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court found that neither proposed redaction justified withholding the material from public view. The first passage described one software program at a high level and contained no technical detail. The second passage discussed, also at a high level, one expert’s view that it would not be difficult for Two Harbors Investment Corp. to replace or reproduce the intellectual property at issue.

Result

The court stated that it would file an unredacted version of the expert-opinion order on the public docket on May 1, 2025, unless one or both parties submitted a letter brief before then persuading the court that the proposed redactions should be maintained. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.