Carbon Investment Partners, LLC v. Bressler
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-03617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Carbon Investment Partners v. Bressler, Judge Ramos directed a response to plaintiffs’ request to seal certain exhibits but did not decide the request.
Carbon Investment Partners, LLC, Carbon Master Fund, L.P., the defendant, and public access to the identified court exhibits.
What happened
Carbon Investment Partners, LLC and Carbon Master Fund, L.P. asked in Carbon Investment Partners, LLC v. Bressler for permission to seal several exhibits to their amended complaint and to permanently seal an exhibit supporting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs said the documents contained confidential business agreements, financial arrangements, and other information that could harm their commercial interests and the interests of their principals if disclosed. They also sought to file another exhibit temporarily under seal so the defendant could request its continued sealing based on possible private financial communications.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendant to respond by the end of business on Monday, September 14, 2020. The provided text does not show that the court granted or denied the sealing requests.
The detailed version
- Carbon Investment Partners, LLC v. Bressler · No. 1:20-cv-03617
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 10, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs Carbon Investment Partners, LLC and Carbon Master Fund, L.P. filed a letter motion asking to restrict public access to specified court exhibits. They requested permission to file Exhibits 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 19, and 20 to their First Amended Complaint under seal; an order permanently sealing Exhibit 1 to the declaration supporting the defendant’s motion to dismiss; and permission to file Exhibit 22 to the amended complaint conditionally under seal while the defendant considered whether to seek its continued sealing.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the exhibits contained commercially sensitive documents, including draft and final foundational agreements, operating documents, and records governing Carbon’s operations and member relationships. They also stated that some documents involved personal guarantees or loans involving Carbon’s principals. According to the plaintiffs, disclosure could harm Carbon and its principals in future negotiations. They further stated that the defendant’s lawyer had asked them to protect documents that might contain confidential financial communications between the defendant and her spouse.
The letter described the legal standard for sealing judicial documents in the Second Circuit. Under that standard, the court considers whether the materials are judicial documents, the strength of the public-access presumption, and whether interests such as business secrecy or privacy outweigh that presumption. The plaintiffs argued that the requested exhibits qualified as judicial documents and should be sealed because they contained business secrets and private information.
Court’s Action
The judge’s endorsement, dated September 10, 2020, directed the defendant to respond by the end of business on Monday, September 14, 2020. The provided text does not contain a ruling granting or denying the motion to seal, does not order any document permanently sealed, and does not state a final disposition of the requests.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.