Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-04252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Innovatus Capital Partners v. Neuman, Judge Stanton’s docket contains Defendants’ request to seal a response; no court ruling appears in the text.
The request concerns Defendants Jonathan Neuman, Anthony Mitchell, Ritz Advisors LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark, and Amanda Zachman, and confidential material designated by Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC.
What happened
Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman concerns a December 8, 2020 letter from the defendants asking to file a response under seal. The response concerned Innovatus’s statement of material facts and included the full text of that statement.
The defendants said the response referred to, quoted, and included information that Innovatus had marked confidential under a protective order. They asked for permission to file the response under seal while the court considered Innovatus’s separate request to seal related material.
Judge Stanton is identified in the filing, but the provided text does not show that he granted or denied the request. It is a party’s request, not a court ruling.
The detailed version
- Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman · No. 1:18-cv-04252
- Louis Stanton
- Dec. 10, 2020
Nature of the filing
The provided document is a December 8, 2020 letter from counsel for Defendants Jonathan Neuman, Anthony Mitchell, Ritz Advisors LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark, and Amanda Zachman. It asks the court for permission to file under seal Defendants’ Response to Innovatus’s Counter Statement of Material Facts.
Request and stated basis
The letter says the response contains the full text of Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC’s counterstatement, parts of which Innovatus claimed contained protected material. The defendants said their response referred to, quoted, and included information Innovatus had designated as confidential under a protective order. They cited the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the standards for sealing judicial documents, and they referred to the protective order’s procedures for filing confidential material under seal.
The defendants asked to file the response under seal while the court considered Innovatus’s December 4, 2020 letter motion to seal. The letter also notes that a redacted version of the counterstatement had been filed as Docket Entry 118.
Disposition
The provided text contains no order or ruling by Judge Stanton. It does not state that the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.