Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:18-cv-08048
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings: Judge Vyskocil granted in part a motion to keep certain case materials sealed.
The parties and non-parties whose employment, business-relationship, and other confidential information appeared in the filed statements; the sealed materials remain unavailable to the public as specified in the order.
What happened
In Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC, the parties prepared statements for anticipated summary-judgment motions, and some information in those statements was filed under seal.
The plaintiff objected to sealing the specific employment date of the defendant’s Chief Compliance Officer and the names and relationships of certain clients, investors, and transaction counterparties. The defendant also asked to keep a reference to a former employee’s separation letter sealed.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted in part the defendant’s motion. The court allowed redaction of the precise employment date, the client and counterparty information, and the separation-letter reference, and directed the parties to file public and fully unredacted versions as specified in the order.
The detailed version
- Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-08048
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 11, 2022
Background
The parties filed a joint letter anticipating summary-judgment motions and submitted consolidated statements describing the undisputed and disputed facts under seal. Plaintiff Paul Iacovacci opposed keeping two portions of the consolidated Rule 56.1 Statement under seal: paragraph P-37 and paragraph P-75. The defendant also asked the court to maintain under seal a reference in Iacovacci’s response to paragraph D-16 to a former employee’s separation letter.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three-part test used in the Second Circuit for sealing judicial documents. It considered whether the material was subject to the public-access presumption, the strength of that presumption, and competing interests such as privacy and protection of confidential business information.
For paragraph P-37, the court found that the specific date on which the defendant’s Chief Compliance Officer began employment was personal information. Although the plaintiff pointed to a public filing showing the month and year of her hiring, he did not identify a public disclosure of the specific date. The court therefore permitted that date to remain under seal.
For paragraph P-75, the court found that the information identified the defendant’s past or prospective clients, investors, and transaction counterparties and described their relationships with the defendant. The court concluded that the cited public filings did not disclose all of those names together with the relationship descriptions, and it allowed that information to remain under seal. The court also allowed the reference to the former employee’s separation letter in paragraph D-16 to remain sealed because it disclosed confidential employment information about a non-party whose privacy interest outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Ruling and effect
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted in part the defendant’s motion to maintain portions of the consolidated Rule 56.1 Statement and Counter-Statement under seal. The parties were directed to refile the consolidated Rule 56.1 Statement publicly, with permission to redact only the precise date when the Chief Compliance Officer began employment. The publicly filed versions could also redact paragraph P-75 and paragraph D-16, while fully unredacted versions had to be filed on the docket. The court also requested that the Clerk close docket entries 241, 246, 249, and 255.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.