Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-04252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Innovatus v. Neuman concerns a sealing request, but the provided text shows no ruling by Judge Stanton.
MV Realty, PBC, LLC and Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC; the provided text does not show a court ruling affecting their rights.
What happened
In Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman, the provided text consists of letters about whether parts of a February 1, 2022 filing should be kept from public view.
MV Realty asked permission to file portions of its letter under seal because it referred to information Innovatus had labeled confidential. Innovatus responded that it did not object to public filing of the proposed redacted information.
The provided text does not include a court ruling or show what Judge Stanton decided. It therefore does not establish whether the sealing request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
The detailed version
- Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman · No. 1:18-cv-04252
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 14, 2022
What the provided text shows
The text contains two lawyers’ letters concerning a request to file portions of a February 1, 2022 letter under seal. The request was made on behalf of MV Realty, PBC, LLC. The letter states that the proposed sealed material referred to information Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC had designated as confidential under a protective order.
Positions described in the letters
MV Realty asked for permission to file portions of its letter under seal, subject to Innovatus’s position. The letter cited the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and the standard that sealing must be necessary to protect a higher value and narrowly tailored. Innovatus later stated that it had reviewed the proposed redactions and did not seek sealed treatment of that information.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain an order, decision, or other stated action by Judge Louis Stanton on the sealing request. No disposition can therefore be identified from this text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.