NRD GP LLC v. Centiva Capital, LP
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-07245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In NRD GP LLC v. Centiva Capital, Judge Garnett granted limited sealing requests and ordered an in-camera review of disputed communications.
NRD GP LLC, Nebula Research & Development LLC, and Centiva Capital, LP; the plaintiffs must submit the disputed communications for the court’s private review.
What happened
NRD GP LLC v. Centiva Capital, LP concerns the defendant’s request to compel production of communications that the plaintiffs said were privileged. The parties also asked to file their submissions under seal and proposed redactions.
The court granted the parties’ requests to file their submissions under seal to the extent the materials were redacted. It found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect competitively sensitive information and privileged material.
Judge Garnett ordered the plaintiffs to submit the disputed communications for the court’s private review by July 23, 2025. The order did not decide whether the communications must ultimately be produced.
The detailed version
- NRD GP LLC v. Centiva Capital, LP · No. 1:24-cv-07245
- Garnett
- July 17, 2025
Background
On July 8, 2025, Centiva Capital, LP filed a letter-motion seeking to compel NRD GP LLC and Nebula Research & Development LLC to produce communications over which they had asserted privilege. Centiva also asked to file its motion and exhibits under seal. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to compel and separately asked to file their submissions under seal. The parties later requested permission to use proposed redactions.
Sealing Rulings
The court granted Centiva’s and the plaintiffs’ letter-motions to file their submissions under seal, but only to the extent the submissions were redacted. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect competitively sensitive information and privileged material. It explained that the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents is not absolute and must be balanced against competing considerations.
Motion to Compel
The court did not decide the motion to compel in this order. Instead, it ordered the plaintiffs to submit the contested communications for the court’s in-camera review, meaning a private review by the judge, no later than July 23, 2025. The plaintiffs were directed to send the files to the court’s chambers email address or provide access through a file-sharing service, with any redacted information highlighted.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket Nos. 51 and 53.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.