Halperin v. Cornell Capital LLC
Alan D. Halperin, as Litigation Trustee of the Instant Brands Litigation Trust v. Cornell Capital LLC et al.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-04890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Halperin v. Cornell Capital, Judge Garnett ordered a video conference about the parties’ unresolved protective-order dispute.
The Trustee, the defendants, the Litigation Trust Advisory Board, and the court were affected by the unresolved dispute over access to confidential case materials and the resulting video conference.
What happened
In Alan D. Halperin, as Litigation Trustee of the Instant Brands Litigation Trust v. Cornell Capital LLC et al., the parties disagreed about a protective order governing confidential information exchanged during the case. The Trustee asked to use an order that would allow the Litigation Trust Advisory Board to review confidential materials.
The defendants sought an additional “Highly Confidential” category that would prevent the Advisory Board’s three members from reviewing those materials. The Trustee argued that the defendants had not shown a specific risk of competitive harm and that the Board needed access to the case materials to perform its duties.
Judge Garnett did not decide the protective-order dispute in this order. Instead, the court ordered the parties to appear for a video conference on October 21, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. for guidance on the disagreement.
The detailed version
- Halperin v. Cornell Capital LLC · No. 1:25-cv-04890
- Garnett
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
The Trustee’s counsel informed the court that the parties had reached an impasse over the form of a protective order. A protective order governs how parties may use and disclose information exchanged during litigation.
The Trustee proposed an order based largely on the court’s standard form. The proposal would allow members of the Litigation Trust Advisory Board—Benjamin Xie, Jonny Cheatle, and Martin Olson—to review materials designated “confidential.” The Trustee stated that the Board oversees, advises on, and approves decisions by the Trustee, including important decisions about the claims in this case.
The defendants proposed an additional “Highly Confidential” designation whose stated purpose was to prevent the Board members from reviewing materials placed in that category. According to the Trustee’s letter, the defendants justified the restriction by asserting that the Board members work in the finance sector and could create a risk of competitive harm.
Arguments described in the letter
The Trustee argued that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the party seeking limits on disclosure must show “good cause,” meaning a specific and serious reason for the restriction. The Trustee contended that the defendants had offered only vague assertions of competitive harm, that the Board members were not competitors of the defendants, and that the information was years old. The Trustee also pointed to the proposed order’s restrictions on using confidential information outside the litigation.
The opinion text provided is principally the Trustee’s letter requesting the court’s guidance. It does not include a written response from the defendants or a judicial analysis resolving which protective-order language should apply.
Court action
The court ordered the parties to appear for a video conference on October 21, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The order did not grant or deny either proposed protective order and did not resolve the parties’ confidentiality dispute.
Result
The matter was set for a court conference concerning the protective order. No merits ruling on the underlying litigation appears in the provided text.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.