Kornotzki v. Jawad
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-06689
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kornotzki v. Jawad, Judge Furman temporarily granted redaction requests, postponing a final sealing decision until the underlying motion is decided.
The parties and the non-public business information in Exhibits H and I were affected. The documents could temporarily be filed with redactions, but the court deferred a final decision on maintaining those redactions.
What happened
In Kornotzki v. Jawad, the parties asked to file two exhibits with certain information covered up while the court considered a motion to amend.
The covered information concerned non-public business information involving Bridge Innovation Capital Ltd., its consulting services, a client, and commercial strategies. Dr. Kornotzki’s counsel argued that the information should remain confidential.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the request to file the documents in redacted form. He directed that the court would decide whether to keep the redactions when ruling on the underlying motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related letter motion.
The detailed version
- Kornotzki v. Jawad · No. 1:19-cv-06689
- Jesse Furman
- May 20, 2020
Background
Defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Tariq Jawad asked for permission to file certain documents in redacted form in connection with his motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Dr. Eberhard Kornotzki submitted a letter explaining why the redactions were needed. The parties had conferred and narrowed the confidentiality request to specific language in Exhibits H and I of a supporting declaration.
Information at Issue
Exhibit H contained a non-public document from Dr. Kornotzki’s company, Bridge Innovation Capital Ltd., concerning particular products sought from third parties. Exhibit I contained a non-public agreement between Bridge Innovation Capital Ltd. and a third-party consulting client. Dr. Kornotzki’s counsel stated that the redacted portions contained limited, non-public business information and strategies concerning the company’s proprietary consulting services, the specific client, and that client’s commercial strategies.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the parties’ request to file the documents in redacted form. The court stated that it would decide whether to maintain the documents in redacted form when deciding the underlying motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 43, the letter motion seeking permission to file the documents in redacted form. The order did not make a final decision on whether the redactions would remain.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.