PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-05649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In PRCM Advisers v. Two Harbors, Judge Kaplan signed “SO ORDERED” on a request to redact confidential material and seal an exhibit.
Two Harbors Investment Corp., Pine River, the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to the identified filings and deposition materials.
What happened
PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. concerns Two Harbors’s request to redact references to confidential documents in its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motions in limine and to seal an unredacted deposition-exhibit transcript.
Two Harbors said the materials included previously sealed expert reports, testimony from Securities and Exchange Commission proceedings, and discussion of another confidential document. It also said the court had previously sealed the identified materials.
The filing bears a “SO ORDERED” signature from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. The text provided does not state whether the request was granted or denied, or otherwise specify the order’s precise disposition.
The detailed version
- PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-05649
- Lewis Kaplan
- July 23, 2025
Background
Two Harbors Investment Corp. submitted a letter asking the court to allow redactions in its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motions in limine and to seal the unredacted version of Exhibit 6. The letter says the requested redactions concern material designated confidential under a protective order or drawn from documents the court had previously sealed.
Materials at Issue
The request concerned references to three expert reports submitted on behalf of Pine River; portions of Exhibits 6 and 8, which are deposition-transcript excerpts; and references to several additional expert reports. Two Harbors said Exhibit 6 referred to testimony given during Securities and Exchange Commission proceedings and that Exhibit 8 discussed a document marked confidential and sealed. The letter also states that the court had previously granted requests to file the identified expert reports and similar testimony under seal.
Court Action
The document ends with a “SO ORDERED” signature attributed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. The provided text does not include an express statement granting, denying, or granting in part the sealing request. Accordingly, the precise disposition cannot be determined from the text provided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.