Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-04252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Innovatus Capital Partners v. Neuman, counsel requested sealing; Judge Stanton’s text contains no court ruling.
Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC, the MV Realty Parties identified in the letter, and members of the public who might otherwise access the filed materials.
What happened
In Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman, Innovatus’s lawyer asked the court for permission to file under seal a letter and attachments concerning a discovery dispute.
The requested redactions would cover information the MV Realty Parties had marked confidential or highly confidential, including information that counsel described as competitively sensitive.
The provided text does not show a ruling on the request. It is a letter addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton, not an order deciding whether the materials may be sealed.
The detailed version
- Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman · No. 1:18-cv-04252
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 21, 2021
Document and request
The provided text is a letter from counsel for Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC to Judge Louis L. Stanton. Innovatus was identified as the plaintiff in Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman and as the defendant and cross-claimant in a related action, MV Realty PBC, LLC v. Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC.
Counsel requested permission to file under seal portions of Innovatus’s October 11, 2021 letter and attachments concerning a pre-motion conference request about the MV Realty Parties’ alleged failure to produce responsive documents. Filing under seal would restrict public access to the materials.
Basis stated for sealing
The letter cited the standard that sealing judicial documents must be essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. It also cited cases concerning protection of marketing strategy, financial analysis, and business-development strategy, as well as the lower presumption of public access for materials involved in discovery-related disputes.
The proposed redactions would protect information that the MV Realty Parties had designated either “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL” under a protective order. The letter stated that the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” designation covered information believed to pose a substantial risk of serious financial, competitive, or other injury if disclosed, while the “CONFIDENTIAL” designation covered information believed to deserve confidential treatment.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain a court order or ruling on Innovatus’s request. It therefore does not establish whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise acted on the request to file the materials under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.