Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 2, 2021

IN RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-08331
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
SecuritiesCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re: Mindbody, Inc. Securities Litigation: Judge Caproni granted defendants’ request to seal limited portions of their answer.

Who this affects

The order affected defendants Mindbody, Inc., Richard L. Stollmeyer, Brett White, and Eric Liaw, and concerned limited portions of their answer to the second amended complaint. It also concerned public access to information identified in the complaint as sealed.

What happened

In In re: Mindbody, Inc. Securities Litigation, the defendants asked to keep limited portions of their answer to the second amended complaint under seal. The requested redactions repeated information that the court had already allowed the plaintiffs to file under seal.

The defendants proposed redacting only portions of the answer that restated allegations from the second amended complaint, and only where the corresponding material was already redacted there. The request concerned the answer filed by Mindbody, Inc., Richard L. Stollmeyer, Brett White, and Eric Liaw.

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the limited request to file portions of the answer under seal. The order did not address the underlying securities-litigation claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
IN RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:19-cv-08331
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Sept. 2, 2021

Background

Defendants Mindbody, Inc., Richard L. Stollmeyer, Brett White, and Eric Liaw sought permission to file limited portions of their answer to the second amended complaint under seal. Lead plaintiffs Walleye Trading LLC and Walleye Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. brought the second amended complaint.

The defendants proposed narrowly tailored redactions. They sought to redact only portions of the answer that repeated allegations from the second amended complaint, and only information that the court had previously authorized to remain sealed in that complaint.

The Request and Ruling

The defendants argued that the proposed redactions satisfied the two-part sealing standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga: assessing the weight of the public-access presumption and balancing it against competing interests, including privacy interests. The opinion text does not include a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning beyond the prior authorization and the order granting the request.

Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order: “GRANTED. ORDERED.” The court therefore granted the defendants’ limited sealing request. The text does not state any ruling on the merits of the securities claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.