Subramanian v. Lupin Inc.

Background

On January 8, 2020, Veerappan Subramanian and the other identified Sellers filed a motion for partial summary judgment. They filed 83 exhibits with that motion and asked to seal 74 of them. They also sought to file redacted versions of their Rule 56.1 statement, memorandum of law, and Galit Kierkut’s declaration, removing portions that referred to information in the exhibits.

Sellers stated that at least one party had designated the documents “Confidential” and that the documents contained confidential financial information, strategic-planning information, and other sensitive business information. They sought to seal the 74 exhibits in their entirety.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Documents submitted for consideration on a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents, meaning court records to which a strong presumption of public access applies under both common law and the First Amendment. The court explained that this presumption is especially strong for summary-judgment materials.

The court also explained that a party’s designation of documents as confidential does not by itself overcome the presumption of public access. Although sealing may be appropriate for some confidential or business information, Sellers did not identify why sealing the exhibits in full, or redacting the references in the other filings, was justified under the Lugosch standard.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the request to seal without prejudice. She ordered Sellers, by January 28, 2020, to explain why sealing was justified under Lugosch. Alternatively, Sellers could submit more narrowly tailored proposed redactions, but they still had to explain why those redactions were appropriate under that standard. This order addressed access to court filings; it did not decide the underlying partial summary-judgment motion.