InspiRX Inc. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03214
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
InspiRX v. Lupin Atlantis: Judge Cronan requested justification for specific sealing redactions before deciding whether to keep them sealed.
InspiRX Inc. and Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, whose previously sealed filings and proposed redactions were under review.
What happened
InspiRX Inc. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA concerns proposed redactions to documents that had previously been filed under seal. The court had directed the parties to justify those redactions under the standards for sealing court records.
InspiRX submitted proposed redactions and highlighted sealed versions, along with the parties’ views on keeping the information sealed. The court identified specific redactions in Exhibits 6, 8, 18, and 21 that required additional explanation.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered InspiRX to file a letter by December 18, 2020 explaining why those redactions were justified. The order did not make a final decision on sealing and warned that the court could unseal the letter or documents later.
The detailed version
- InspiRX Inc. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA · No. 1:20-cv-03214
- John Cronan
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
During an October 26, 2020 telephone conference, the court ordered the parties to submit proposed redactions for documents previously filed under seal, along with a letter justifying the redactions under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The court later extended InspiRX’s deadline to November 13, 2020.
InspiRX filed proposed redactions on November 13 and, after a further court order, filed highlighted versions under seal on November 17. Its submission included a letter explaining both parties’ views on maintaining the redacted portions under seal.
Order
Before making a final ruling on sealing, the court requested additional clarification about specific redactions: Exhibit 6 at page 8; Exhibit 8 at page 28; Exhibit 18 at pages 49, 53, 55, 61, and 62; and Exhibit 21 at page 21. The court noted that InspiRX had not sought redactions for some information elsewhere in the case.
The court ordered InspiRX to file a letter by December 18, 2020 explaining why those redactions were justified. The court allowed the letter to be filed under seal if necessary to explain the claimed need for confidentiality, but cautioned that it could unseal the letter if the redactions were not justified. The court also stated that, even if sealing was warranted at that stage, it retained discretion to unseal documents later, particularly in light of the parties’ representation that they had agreed not to redact terms directly affecting the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.