Venture Group Enterprises, Inc. v. Vonage Business Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-04095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Venture Group Enterprises v. Vonage Business, Judge Abrams required a justification for sealing, with a response deadline.
Venture Group Enterprises, Inc. and Vonage Business Inc., concerning whether Venture’s court filings may be filed under seal.
What happened
Venture Group Enterprises, Inc. v. Vonage Business Inc. concerns Venture’s request to file a letter motion and supporting papers under seal. Venture was represented by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.
Venture said it sought sealing as a precaution because Vonage had objected, under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, to filing certain information. The text does not identify the information or explain the underlying dispute.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed Venture to explain by September 2, 2020, why sealing was justified under the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The text states that Vonage could respond by September 9, 2020, but it does not state that the sealing request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Venture Group Enterprises, Inc. v. Vonage Business Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04095
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
Venture Group Enterprises, Inc. submitted a letter motion seeking permission to file under seal its August 27, 2020 letter motion and supporting papers concerning a proposed amendment to an August 21, 2020 letter. The letter was submitted by Venture’s counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.
Venture stated that it sought sealing “out of an abundance of caution” because Vonage Business Inc. had objected, under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, to Venture’s filing of certain information. The opinion text does not describe the information, the parties’ underlying claims, or the substance of Vonage’s objection.
Court’s Direction
The opinion text states that Venture had to provide the Court, by September 2, 2020, with its reasoning for why sealing its letter motion and supporting papers was justified under the standard set out in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). It further states that Vonage could respond to Venture’s sealing request and/or letter by September 9, 2020.
The available text does not state that the Court granted or denied Venture’s request to seal. It reflects a direction to provide further justification and deadlines for a possible response.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.