PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-05649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In PRCM Advisers v. Two Harbors, Judge Abams temporarily sealed an unredacted complaint and ordered a redacted version publicly filed.
PRCM Advisers LLC, Two Harbors Investment Corp., their attorneys, and members of the public seeking access to the court record.
What happened
PRCM Advisers LLC asked to file an unredacted complaint under seal while placing a redacted complaint on the public docket. The case is PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., No. 20-CV-5649.
The court granted the request as specified. It allowed the unredacted complaint to remain temporarily sealed and available to the attorneys of record, the court, and court personnel. It ordered the redacted complaint filed publicly by July 27, 2020.
After Two Harbors enters an appearance, the parties must file a joint letter within one week identifying any redactions they believe are necessary and explaining why public access should be overcome. Judge Abams also stated that confidentiality provisions and a business preference for secrecy, by themselves, are not enough to justify sealing.
The detailed version
- PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-05649
- Lewis Kaplan
- July 24, 2020
Background
PRCM Advisers LLC moved for permission to file an unredacted complaint under seal and to file a redacted complaint publicly. The order refers to PRCM Advisers as “Pine River’s” and to Two Harbors Investment Corp. as “Two Harbors.”
Ruling
The court granted the motion as follows:
- An unredacted version of the complaint filed on July 21, 2020, was to be temporarily filed under seal in the electronic case file, at least until Two Harbors entered an appearance and the parties filed the required joint letter. - The unredacted complaint was to be accessible to the attorneys of record, the court, and court personnel. - The redacted complaint was to be filed on the public docket no later than July 27, 2020. - Within one week after Two Harbors entered an appearance, the parties were required to file a joint letter stating which redactions, if any, they believed were necessary. For each proposed redaction, they had to explain why it overcame the public’s common-law right of access to judicial documents.
Judge Abams warned that the existence of confidentiality provisions in the parties’ Management Agreement would not, by itself, show that sealing was necessary. The court also stated that information a business would prefer to keep secret does not automatically qualify for protection from public disclosure.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.