SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-00209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski, Judge Failla granted Lemanski’s motion to seal unredacted filings containing claimed confidential information.
Defendant Patricia M. Lemanski’s unredacted memorandum and affidavit were ordered filed under seal; the ruling concerns public access to those documents.
What happened
In SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski, Defendant Patricia M. Lemanski asked to file under seal her memorandum and affidavit opposing SFM Realty Corp.’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Lemanski’s motion said the documents contained information that SFM claimed was proprietary, confidential business information and trade secrets, as well as sensitive personal information about Lemanski and her family.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application and ordered the unredacted memorandum and accompanying unredacted affidavit filed under seal.
The detailed version
- SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski · No. 1:20-cv-00209
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Defendant Patricia M. Lemanski moved to file under seal her memorandum of law and affidavit opposing Plaintiff SFM Realty Corp.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion stated that the documents included information SFM claimed was proprietary, confidential business information and trade secrets, which SFM believed could cause competitive harm if disclosed.
The motion also stated that the filings contained sensitive personal information about Lemanski and her family. Lemanski argued that the harm alleged from disclosure outweighed the public interest in accessing the information and cited decisions from the Southern District of New York concerning confidential business and personal information.
Ruling
The court granted the application. Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered that Lemanski’s unredacted memorandum of law and accompanying unredacted affidavit be filed under seal.
The supplied opinion addresses only the sealing application. It does not state that the court decided SFM’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.