Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Wander
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-03453
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Leadenhall v. Wander: Judge Koeltl was asked to approve redacted filings, but the provided text contains no ruling.
Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP, Leadenhall Life Insurance Linked Investments Fund PLC, A-CAP, the other defendants identified in the letter, and members of the public seeking access to court filings.
What happened
In Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP et al. v. Wander et al., Leadenhall asked the court for permission to file a reply supporting its request to hold certain parties in contempt, with some information redacted.
Leadenhall said the redactions were made at A-CAP’s request but argued that many were too broad. It said some materials were already publicly available, and that the public had an interest in information about A-CAP’s insurance affiliates and related regulatory proceedings.
The provided text is a May 27, 2025 letter to Judge John G. Koeltl, not a court ruling. It does not state whether the request to file redacted materials was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Wander · No. 1:24-cv-03453
- John Koeltl
- May 28, 2025
Document and request
The provided text is a May 27, 2025 letter from Leigh M. Nathanson of King & Spalding, writing for plaintiffs Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP and Leadenhall Life Insurance Linked Investments Fund PLC. The letter asks Judge Koeltl for approval to file, with redactions, Leadenhall’s reply supporting its motion for contempt against the guarantors, A-CAP, and Kenneth King.
The letter says the reply discusses exhibits previously filed with an earlier declaration and a new exhibit. Leadenhall states that it provisionally redacted information at A-CAP’s request and notified the defendants that they had to file a letter explaining why the information should be sealed or redacted.
Leadenhall’s position
Leadenhall says it does not agree with A-CAP’s approach to sealing. It cites the court’s individual rules and Second Circuit law concerning the presumption that the public may access judicial documents. The letter argues that sealing must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific findings showing that it is necessary to protect a stronger interest.
Leadenhall specifically challenges requests to seal deposition transcripts and descriptions of testimony from another case, stating that the material was not designated confidential there and that portions had been filed publicly. It also argues that documents concerning regulatory proceedings in South Carolina and Utah were publicly available, at least for a period of time, and concern matters of public interest. Leadenhall agrees that economically sensitive terms in certain email exchanges may be redacted but disputes sealing the exchanges in their entirety. As to another agreement, Leadenhall takes no position while stating that narrow redactions would be sufficient.
What the provided text does not decide
The letter is not an opinion or order deciding the sealing request. It does not state whether Judge Koeltl approved the redactions, required changes, or denied the request. It also does not state the outcome of Leadenhall’s contempt motion. The provided text says only that Leadenhall requested an opportunity to respond to any arguments the defendants submitted about the proposed redactions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.