Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Axsome Therapeutics shareholder litigation, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to file a redacted amended complaint.
Plaintiffs seeking to publicly file a redacted amended complaint, defendants who may claim a confidentiality interest in the material, and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.
What happened
Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig. concerns plaintiffs’ request to publicly file a version of their amended shareholder complaint with limited redactions. Plaintiffs said the redactions were required by a confidentiality agreement covering information from Axsome’s internal documents.
Plaintiffs argued that narrow redactions would protect confidential information while preserving public access to most of the complaint. They asked the court for permission to file the redacted version.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court said that a confidentiality agreement alone generally does not justify restricting public access, and allowed plaintiffs and defendants to submit letters by December 8, 2025, addressing any additional basis for sealing.
The detailed version
- Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. S’holder Deriv. Litig. · No. 1:22-cv-06183
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs asked for permission to publicly file a redacted version of their Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint. They identified allegations in paragraphs 7, 57–61, 140–148, and 166 as being based on internal documents produced by nominal defendant Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. under a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Plaintiffs stated that the agreement required them to redact portions of the amended complaint that relied on information covered by the agreement. They argued that limited redactions were narrowly tailored to comply with the agreement while allowing the public to access and generally understand most of the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court held that confidentiality agreements between parties are generally insufficient by themselves to support sealing or redaction because court filings are presumptively open to public access.
The court permitted plaintiffs to file a supplemental letter by December 8, 2025, explaining any basis for sealing beyond the parties’ agreement. It also permitted defendants to file a letter by that date supporting sealing if they had a confidentiality interest in the material at issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.