Hodnett v. Medalist Partners Opportunity Master Fund II-A, L.P.
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-00038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hodnett v. Medalist Partners, Judge Vyskocil granted a request to seal specified exhibits containing PIPINGusa’s confidential business information.
The plaintiffs’ court filing, PIPINGusa’s asserted confidential business information, and public access to the listed exhibits were affected. The signed order grants sealing for Exhibits 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 25, 47, and 49.
What happened
In Hodnett et al. v. Medalist Partners Opportunity Master Fund II-A, et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to seal exhibits supporting their request for a preliminary injunction. They said the exhibits contained PIPINGusa’s trade secrets and confidential business information.
The materials included business plans, financial information and projections, a draft operating agreement, and terms of an exclusive supply agreement. The plaintiffs argued that disclosure could give competitors an advantage and said the information had been kept confidential.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request to seal the exhibits listed in the signed order. The order’s list includes Exhibits 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 25, 47, and 49.
The detailed version
- Hodnett v. Medalist Partners Opportunity Master Fund II-A, L.P. · No. 1:21-cv-00038
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 20, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs Brad Hodnett and Cynthia Hodnett sought a preliminary injunction and asked the court to seal exhibits attached to Brad Hodnett’s declaration. The request concerned documents that, according to the plaintiffs, contained PIPINGusa’s confidential business information and trade secrets.
Request to Seal
The plaintiffs’ filing explained that the exhibits contained PIPINGusa’s detailed business plans, financial information and projections, a draft operating agreement, and the terms of an exclusive supply agreement with Krah GmbH concerning the sale of high-density polyethylene and polypropylene piping technology in the western United States. The plaintiffs argued that disclosure could give PIPINGusa’s competitors a business advantage. They also represented that PIPINGusa had taken steps to preserve the documents’ confidentiality and that the same exhibits had been filed under seal in New York State Supreme Court before the case was moved to federal court.
The filing recognized that documents submitted to support a preliminary-injunction motion are judicial documents, meaning documents relevant to the court’s decision, and therefore carry a strong presumption of public access. It argued that the interest in protecting the confidential business information outweighed that presumption.
Ruling
The signed order states: “request to seal Exhibits 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 25, 47, and 49 attached to the Declaration of Brad” Hodnett and filed in support of the preliminary-injunction application “is GRANTED.” Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order on January 20, 2021.
The request letter also referred to Exhibits 35 and 41, but the signed order’s list of exhibits granted sealing does not include those exhibits. The opinion text provided does not state a separate disposition for Exhibits 35 and 41.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.