Cointelligence Fund LP, et al. v. Baller Entertainment LTD, et al.

Background

The plaintiffs—Cointelligence Fund LP, On Yavin, and Online Performance OU—asked for permission to file a partially redacted First Amended Complaint and three agreements under seal. The agreements were an investing agreement between Cointelligence Fund and Baller Entertainment LTD and two consulting agreements involving On Yavin, Online Performance, and Baller Entertainment. The plaintiffs stated that the agreements contained confidentiality provisions.

The plaintiffs said that prior defense counsel had threatened to assert claims based on alleged violations of those provisions. They took no position on whether the agreements and related portions of the amended complaint should be kept from public view, but asked the court to allow the defendants an opportunity to present their position.

Legal framework

The application discussed the Second Circuit’s three-part framework for sealing or redacting judicial documents: whether the materials are judicial documents, how much weight the public-access presumption receives, and whether legitimate reasons for limiting disclosure outweigh that presumption. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the amended complaint and its exhibits are judicial documents to which a presumptive right of public access applies. They disputed that sufficient reasons existed to overcome that presumption, while deferring to the defendants’ preferences for purposes of the request.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the clerk to accept the partially redacted First Amended Complaint on the docket at Docket Entry 26 and directed the plaintiffs to file the unredacted version separately under seal. The court noted that the defendants had not responded and stated that, at some point, they must justify the need for continued sealing. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket Entry 25.

This order addressed the filing and sealing procedure only. It did not decide the parties’ underlying contract allegations or whether continued sealing would ultimately be justified.