Kumaran v. National Futures Association

Background

The court considered Plaintiff Samantha Siva Kumaran’s motion to reconsider its February 18, 2021 order granting Defendant Tom Kadlec’s request to seal portions of the Guaranty & Fee Agreement filed at ECF No. 58-1. Reconsideration is a request to revisit an earlier ruling based on an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court described the standard as strict.

Parties’ positions

Kumaran argued that the court had incorrectly stated that the amended complaint did not reference or quote the material Kadlec sought to seal. She asserted that the amended complaint referred to and quoted Sections 1 and 2.2 of the agreement and its recitals. In her reply, she focused on Section 2.2, concerning a personal guaranty given by Howard Rothman and Robert Boshnack, and Exhibit B, the form of guaranty agreement executed by them. Kadlec argued that Kumaran’s statements about what the amended complaint quoted or referenced were incorrect.

Court’s analysis

After further review, the court found that certain portions of the amended complaint did refer to the content of Section 2.2. Because Exhibit B implemented Section 2.2, the court also agreed to reconsider the redaction of that exhibit. The court declined to reconsider sealing based on references to Section 1, explaining that Section 1 was not redacted and that its reference to Section 6 did not disclose the redacted content, which was limited to Section 6.2. The court also found that the cited allegations about the recitals did not disclose the specific contents of the redacted portions.

The court clarified that merely mentioning a sealed section is different from revealing the specific information placed under seal. It also stated that sealing does not prevent the plaintiffs from citing or relying on the information in litigating the case, so long as discussion of the redacted content is itself redacted and covered by an appropriate sealing request. The court said it could revisit sealing later if discussion of the redacted information became necessary to resolve the case.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Kumaran’s motion. It will reconsider the sealing motion only as to Section 2.2 and Exhibit B of the Guaranty & Fee Agreement. The court ordered Kadlec to file, by March 26, 2021, a letter stating what portions of those items he still seeks to seal and explaining the basis for continued sealing. This was an order concerning reconsideration and sealing, not a decision on the underlying dispute.