Ricatto v. M3 Innovations Unlimited, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:18-cv-08404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ricatto v. M3 Innovations, Judge Failla granted an application to seal Exhibit MM and an unidentified second exhibit, limiting access to the court and parties.
Ricatto, M3 Innovations Unlimited, Inc., the other parties, and third parties whose personal or confidential information appears in the exhibits.
What happened
In Ricatto v. M3 Innovations Unlimited, Inc., Ricatto asked to file certain exhibits supporting a summary-judgment motion under seal or with redactions. The requests involved confidential business information, financial-account and wire-transfer numbers, attorney-client or work-product material, and third-party privacy interests.
The filing identified exhibits MM and ZZ as materials requested to be filed under seal and identified five other exhibits for redaction. The request relied on court rules, a protective order, and earlier court rulings. The opinion states that court records are generally presumed accessible to the public, but access may be restricted after a sufficient showing of a need for privacy or confidentiality.
The court granted the application. Its order states that Exhibits MM and a second exhibit that is not identified in the provided text were to be filed under seal and made visible only to the court and the parties. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.
The detailed version
- Ricatto v. M3 Innovations Unlimited, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-08404
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 23, 2021
Background
Ricatto, identified in the filing as a plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, submitted a letter asking permission to file exhibits supporting a motion for summary judgment either under seal or with selected redactions. The requests concerned confidential business information, third-party personal information, financial-account and wire-transfer numbers, and material Ricatto or M3 claimed was protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege.
The requests referred to a February 19, 2020 protective order and to an earlier January 25, 2021 ruling concerning a motion to compel. The letter also cited the federal rule limiting the public filing of certain sensitive identifying and financial information. The filing explained that judicial records are generally presumed accessible to the public, and that restricting access requires a substantial showing that confidentiality or privacy interests justify doing so.
Requested Filings
Ricatto requested that Exhibits MM and ZZ be filed under seal because they had been designated confidential and contained sensitive information. The letter separately requested redactions to Exhibits FF, GG, GGG, III, and NNN for privilege, confidentiality, or financial-account information.
Disposition
The court stated: “Application GRANTED.” It ordered that Exhibits MM and a second exhibit whose identifier is missing from the provided opinion text be filed under seal, visible only to the court and the parties. The order does not state in the provided text whether the separate requests to file Exhibits FF, GG, GGG, III, and NNN in redacted form were granted. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order on April 22, 2021.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns access to and redaction of court filings rather than the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.