Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 11, 2022

In re: Elysium Health-Chromadex Litigation

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:17-cv-07394
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In re Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation: Judge Liman directed the parties to justify which summary-judgment and expert exhibits should remain sealed.

Who this affects

The parties seeking to seal exhibits related to the summary-judgment and expert-witness motions, and the public’s access to those exhibits.

What happened

In re Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation involved the parties’ requests to file certain summary-judgment and expert-witness exhibits under seal.

After holding hearings on the summary-judgment and expert-witness motions and issuing two opinions, the court directed the parties to review the exhibits under applicable public-access standards.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by February 18, 2022, identifying documents that should remain sealed and briefly explaining the basis, any prior public disclosure, and continuing harm from disclosure.

The detailed version

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

Case
In re: Elysium Health-Chromadex Litigation · No. 1:17-cv-07394
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Feb. 11, 2022

Background The parties filed various motions seeking to have certain exhibits related to summary-judgment and expert-witness motions filed under seal. The requests appeared at Dkt. Nos. 200, 202, 207, 220, 231, 238, 241, 248, 259, 261, 264, 271, and 292. The court stated that it had held a hearing on the summary-judgment and expert-witness motions and had issued two opinions.

Court’s Direction The court directed the parties to review the exhibits under the standards established in Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and later decisions. By February 18, 2022, the parties had to submit a joint letter listing the documents that should still be sealed. For each exhibit for which confidentiality was sought, the letter could provide no more than one sentence explaining the basis for the request, addressing whether the information had already been publicly disclosed, and addressing whether disclosure at that time would continue to cause competitive or other serious harm.

Ruling Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to submit the required joint letter. The opinion did not state that any particular exhibit was granted or denied sealing, and it did not identify which documents would remain sealed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.