IN RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-08331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In re Mindbody Securities Litigation: Judge Caproni granted the parties’ requests to redact limited personal and business information.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Mindbody securities litigation, as well as individuals and businesses whose personal or confidential information appeared in the filings and exhibits.
What happened
In In re Mindbody, Inc. Securities Litigation, the parties asked to redact portions of filings and exhibits connected to the plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint. The proposed redactions covered personal identifying information, confidential business information, and private financial or medical information.
The court recognized that the filings were judicial documents, meaning a strong presumption favored public access. It found that protecting personal privacy and Mindbody’s competitive advantage outweighed that presumption, and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ applications to redact the specified information. She also directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motions at docket entries 80 and 84.
The detailed version
- IN RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:19-cv-08331
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 9, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants requested permission to redact portions of filings and exhibits submitted in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. The defendants’ request concerned limited portions of their opposition brief and two exhibits. The opinion states that the parties sought redactions involving personal identifying information, confidential business information related to Mindbody’s partners and customers and to a third party, and personal financial and medical information that was not relevant to the claims.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the exhibits were “judicial documents” because they were relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. As a result, the documents carried a strong presumption of public access. Applying the required balancing test, the court found that protecting individuals’ personal identifying, financial, and medical information, as well as protecting Mindbody’s competitive advantage and specific business information, outweighed public access. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect those interests.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ applications to redact the specified information. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motions at docket entries 80 and 84. This order addressed access to and redaction of filings; it did not decide the underlying securities-litigation claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.