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 considered a request to file a letter under seal, but the available text does not clearly show the disposition.
MV Realty, PBC, LLC, the defendants identified in the letter, Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the filing.
What happened
Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman concerns a request by MV Realty and defendants to file a letter under seal. The letter sought permission to file a request for a conference about Innovatus’s alleged refusal to comply with two court orders.
The requesting parties said the letter referred to, quoted, and contained information Innovatus had marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” under a protective order. They relied on the general rule that court records are presumed open to the public and argued that the protective order required them to follow procedures for filing confidential material under seal.
The available text contains a judicial endorsement by Judge Stanton, but the endorsement is not legible enough to determine whether the request was granted or denied. The court’s ruling therefore needs verification from a clearer copy or the docket.
The detailed version
- Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman · No. 1:18-cv-04252
- Louis Stanton
- May 27, 2021
Background
The provided document is a May 24, 2021 letter addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton. It was submitted on behalf of MV Realty, PBC, LLC and defendants in Case No. 1:18-cv-04252, identified in the letter as the “MV Realty Parties.” The letter asks for permission to file under seal a letter seeking a pre-motion conference about Innovatus’s alleged refusal to comply with the court’s February 11, 2021 and March 23, 2021 orders.
Request to File Under Seal
The letter states that the proposed filing refers to, quotes, and contains information Innovatus designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” under a protective order. It cites the rule that judicial documents are presumptively available to the public, while noting that sealing may be allowed when necessary to protect a higher value and narrowly tailored to that purpose. The letter also quotes the protective order’s requirement that parties follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, the court’s standing order on electronic filing under seal, and the judge’s individual rules when confidential material is included in a filing.
Court Action and Disposition
The document includes an endorsement attributed to Judge Stanton, but the reproduced text does not clearly show whether the request to file under seal was granted or denied. The disposition cannot be stated reliably from the provided copy.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning access to and sealing of court filings. The available text does not show a decision on the underlying dispute about compliance with the earlier court orders.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.