Newman Capital LLC v. Private Capital Group, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-00663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Newman Capital v. Private Capital, Judge Broderick postponed ruling on redactions and allowed refiling of certain motion papers.
Private Capital Group, Inc.’s filing of its motion-to-dismiss papers, the attached exhibit, and the public’s access to those judicial documents.
What happened
Newman Capital LLC v. Private Capital Group, Inc. concerns Private Capital’s request to file parts of its motion-to-dismiss papers in redacted form and to keep an attached exhibit from public disclosure. Private Capital said the papers referred to a confidential document and its terms.
The court did not decide the request to redact or seal the materials. Instead, it directed Private Capital to file a letter by February 9, 2022, supported by legal authority, explaining why factors favoring confidentiality overcome the public’s presumptive access to judicial documents used in deciding cases.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also allowed Private Capital to refile a redacted notice of motion and memorandum of law because the publicly filed versions appeared to be highlighted rather than properly redacted. The court held its decision on the application in abeyance, meaning it postponed that decision.
The detailed version
- Newman Capital LLC v. Private Capital Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00663
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 3, 2022
Background
Private Capital Group, Inc. asked to file portions of papers supporting its motion to dismiss in redacted form. It also sought protection from public disclosure for an attached exhibit. Private Capital stated that the papers referred to a confidential document and the document’s terms, which it said should not be disclosed under section 4 of that document.
Court’s action
The court directed Private Capital to file, by February 9, 2022, a letter supported by legal authority showing what factors in this case overcome the presumption that the public may access judicial documents when those documents form the basis of the court’s adjudication. The court also granted Private Capital leave to refile a redacted notice of motion and memorandum of law because the versions filed publicly appeared to be highlighted copies rather than redacted copies.
The court held in abeyance its decision on Private Capital’s application to redact portions of the memorandum and seal the attached exhibit. The provided opinion text does not show a later ruling on that application. The text also appears incomplete at the end, and it does not state a ruling on the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.