Wallace v. Fundation Group LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-05681
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wallace v. Fundation Group, Judge Gardephe denied without prejudice Wallace’s request to seal a customer-contact exhibit, allowing her to refile by January 10, 2022.
Katie Maloney Wallace’s request to restrict public access to Exhibit 8 was denied without prejudice; Fundation Group LLC and the court were permitted to access the filing under the ruling as stated.
What happened
Wallace v. Fundation Group LLC concerns a request by Katie Maloney Wallace to keep one exhibit from the public record in a case involving an arbitration award about her employment claims. She said Exhibit 8 contained a customer-contact list that was a trade secret. Fundation did not object to keeping the exhibit confidential.
Wallace argued that the list could provide competitors an advantage and that sealing only this exhibit was narrowly limited. She also argued that the contact information was not needed to decide whether the arbitration award should be changed or upheld.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the application without prejudice because Wallace had not explained how disclosure would cause competitive harm. The court allowed her to file another sealing motion by January 10, 2022.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. Fundation Group LLC · No. 1:21-cv-05681
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Katie Maloney Wallace asked the court to keep Exhibit 8 under seal in an action involving a request to partly vacate and partly confirm an arbitration award concerning her gender-discrimination and employment-law claims. The parties had previously used redacted exhibits because the arbitration was confidential, but Fundation Group LLC stated that it did not intend to assert confidentiality over the exhibits. Wallace continued to seek protection for Exhibit 8.
Wallace’s attorney described Exhibit 8 as a compilation of customer and contact information that Wallace had developed through her sales work and entered into Fundation’s internal database. Wallace argued that the list was a trade secret because it could provide an economic advantage to competitors and would be difficult to duplicate. She requested sealing only Exhibit 8, with access limited to the parties and court personnel, rather than sealing all arbitration materials or the arbitration award.
Court’s analysis
The court’s endorsed ruling states that Wallace had not explained how she would suffer competitive harm if Exhibit 8 were disclosed. The opinion did not decide whether the customer-contact list was in fact a trade secret or whether the arbitration award should be vacated or confirmed.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the application without prejudice. The court stated that Wallace could refile her motion to seal by January 10, 2022. The opinion does not state what happened after that deadline.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.