Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-04252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Innovatus v. Neuman, Judge Stanton received defendants’ request to seal summary-judgment materials, but the available text does not show a ruling.
The defendants’ requested filing and Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC’s designated confidential information were affected by the sealing request; the available text does not show a resulting court order.
What happened
Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman concerns a defense request for permission to file summary-judgment materials under seal. The request was made on behalf of Jonathan Neuman, Anthony Mitchell, Ritz Advisors LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark, and Amanda Zachman.
The requested filing included the defendants’ summary-judgment memorandum, statement of material facts, and specified exhibits. The letter said the materials contained information that Innovatus had designated confidential under a protective order. It also suggested redacting names and birthdates in Exhibit 21 if the court did not allow sealing.
The available text does not show whether the request was granted or denied by Judge Louis Stanton. It therefore does not establish a court ruling on sealing.
The detailed version
- Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman · No. 1:18-cv-04252
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
A letter submitted on behalf of defendants Jonathan Neuman, Anthony Mitchell, Ritz Advisors LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark, and Amanda Zachman asked the court for permission to file certain summary-judgment materials under seal. The materials were the defendants’ memorandum supporting summary judgment, statement of material facts, and Exhibits 12–15 and 17–19.
The letter said the filing contained material that Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC had designated “CONFIDENTIAL” under a protective order. It cited the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and the standard that sealing must be necessary to protect an important interest and narrowly tailored. It also referred to the protective order’s procedures for filing confidential material with motions.
The letter additionally stated that Exhibit 21 contained names and birthdates and proposed redacting that information if the court did not permit the exhibit to be filed under seal.
Court Action and Disposition
The provided text is a request from defense counsel, not a clear judicial opinion or order. Although it is marked “MEMO ENDORSED,” the available text does not state what Judge Louis Stanton decided. No disposition—such as granting, denying, or granting in part the sealing request—can be determined from the text provided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.