Zabit v. Brandometry, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs, William Zabit and Brandtransact Worldwide, Inc., submitted a letter asking for four forms of relief related to pending motions to dismiss: permission to file an opposition memorandum of up to 58 pages; permission to file nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements involving LAM Associates and Toroso Investments under seal; permission to file their opposition papers immediately after the court ruled on those requests, or within three days if the draft needed to be shortened; and 30 days for defendants to file replies.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered that the plaintiffs may file an opposition memorandum of no more than 58 pages. It did not automatically authorize sealing the agreements. Instead, the plaintiffs were required to follow sections 4.B–C of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, submit an application showing that the standards for sealing were met, specifically address Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and file the relevant documents under seal on the court’s electronic filing system. If they could not do so, they were required to explain why in their application.

The court also required defendants to submit similar applications justifying the continued sealing of the confidential documents identified in Judge Rakoff’s August 5, 2020 order, the motion to dismiss filed by Brandlogic Corp., Corebrand Data Science, Tenet Partners, and Hampton Bridwell, and the motion to dismiss filed by James Gregory. The parties were ordered to file their sealing applications by December 1, 2020, although they could submit a joint application. After the court ruled on sealing, the plaintiffs were to promptly file their opposition papers, and defendants would have 30 days afterward to file replies.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted the plaintiffs permission to file an oversized opposition memorandum, required the parties to follow the stated procedures for sealing applications, and set the reply schedule. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 133. This order addressed briefing and sealing procedures; it did not resolve the pending motions to dismiss or the underlying claims.