Intrepid Financial Partners, LLC v. Fernandez
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-09779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Intrepid Financial Partners v. Fernandez, Judge Parker sealed the complaint to protect compensation information.
Intrepid Financial Partners, LLC and Antonio C. Fernandez; the order restricts public access to the complaint, including compensation information described in the filing.
What happened
Intrepid Financial Partners, LLC v. Antonio C. Fernandez involved a request to restrict public access to the complaint and related financial information.
Intrepid asked the court to seal the complaint, allow a redacted complaint to be filed, and seal an unredacted exhibit containing Fernandez’s personal compensation information. The letter said the information was included accidentally, and Fernandez consented.
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the clerk to seal the complaint. The opinion text does not separately state whether the court ruled on the requested redacted complaint or unredacted exhibit.
The detailed version
- Intrepid Financial Partners, LLC v. Fernandez · No. 1:20-cv-09779
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 25, 2020
Background
Intrepid Financial Partners, LLC asked the court to restrict public access to its complaint and an exhibit to a declaration. The request concerned personal financial compensation information belonging to Antonio C. Fernandez. The filing stated that the information had been included in the complaint accidentally and that disclosure could prejudice Intrepid while it was hiring a replacement for Fernandez. It also cited privacy concerns.
Request and Position of the Parties
Intrepid requested that the court seal the complaint, permit a redacted version to be filed, and permit an unredacted version of the exhibit to be filed under seal. The letter stated that counsel had conferred with Fernandez and that he consented to the request.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the clerk to seal the complaint. The opinion text does not separately state whether the court granted or denied the requests concerning the redacted complaint and the unredacted exhibit. This was an ancillary filing-access ruling and did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.