Geller Biopharm, Inc. v. Amunix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04334
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Geller Biopharm v. Amunix, Judge Cronan denied without prejudice a request to seal filings and set deadlines for further briefing.
Geller Biopharm, Amunix Pharmaceuticals, and the public’s access to the sealed court filings.
What happened
Geller Biopharm, Inc. v. Amunix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. concerns Geller Biopharm’s request to keep its opposition to Amunix’s motion to dismiss under seal.
The court said the request did not follow its rules and did not explain why sealing was necessary beyond referring to confidential materials. The court also said the existing filings did not provide enough information to decide whether previously sealed documents should remain sealed.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the request without prejudice, while directing the clerk to keep the opposition under seal temporarily. He ordered the parties to explain by October 28, 2020, whether the documents should remain sealed or be filed with redactions, and said unaddressed sealed filings would be unsealed without further notice.
The detailed version
- Geller Biopharm, Inc. v. Amunix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04334
- John Cronan
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
Geller Biopharm, Inc. asked for permission to file under seal its memorandum opposing Amunix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Before the case was reassigned to Judge John P. Cronan, the court had placed under seal the complaint and exhibits, the parties’ pre-motion letters, and Amunix’s memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss.
Sealing standards
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. Under the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, sealing requires specific findings showing that closure is essential to protect a higher interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest. A court must weigh the strength of the public-access presumption against competing considerations. Redaction may be appropriate if it can protect the asserted interest without sealing an entire filing.
Ruling
The court found that Geller Biopharm’s request did not comply with the court’s individual rules because it lacked the required affidavit or affidavits and memorandum of law addressing the applicable sealing standards. The court also found that the filings then on the docket did not allow it to determine whether continued sealing of the complaint and other documents was justified. Geller Biopharm had offered no reason for sealing its opposition memorandum other than reliance on materials it described as confidential.
Judge Cronan therefore denied Geller Biopharm’s sealing request without prejudice, allowing it to make a sufficient showing later. To prevent public disclosure while that showing was being made, the court directed the clerk to place and maintain Geller Biopharm’s opposition memorandum under seal pending further order. Geller Biopharm was ordered to explain by October 28, 2020, why the memorandum should remain sealed. Both parties were also ordered to brief by that date whether the complaint, the parties’ pre-motion letters, and Amunix’s supporting memorandum should remain sealed. Any currently sealed filing not addressed by a party by the deadline would be unsealed without further notice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.