Soprema, Inc. v. Imperbel, N.V.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-08176
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Soprema v. Imperbel, Judge Gardephe granted Imperbel’s request to redact certain European personal data from publicly filed exhibits.
Imperbel and the European Union individuals whose names and email addresses appeared in the documents were directly affected; the public docket contained redacted versions of the exhibits.
What happened
Soprema, Inc. v. Imperbel, N.V. involved Imperbel’s request to file redacted versions of documents attached to its motion to dismiss. The request concerned names and email addresses of certain people in the European Union.
Imperbel said the redactions were needed to comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. It argued that the redactions were limited, protected an important privacy interest, and would not affect consideration of its motion to dismiss. The letter also said Soprema’s counsel was seeking redactions of financial and other information in separate documents.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted Imperbel’s application. The opinion text does not state a separate ruling on Soprema’s contemplated application.
The detailed version
- Soprema, Inc. v. Imperbel, N.V. · No. 1:21-cv-08176
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Imperbel asked for permission to file a public, redacted version of several documents attached to its motion to dismiss. The documents contained names and email addresses of certain individuals in the European Union. Imperbel stated that it is a Belgian company with offices in Brussels and that it was reviewing its obligations under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which governs the handling of personal data.
Arguments
Imperbel argued that the proposed redactions were narrowly limited to personal information, that complying with the regulation was an important interest, and that the public had little interest in accessing the names and email addresses. It also argued that the redactions would not affect the court’s consideration of the motion to dismiss. The letter stated that Soprema’s counsel was seeking redactions of financial and other information in separate documents, with the basis for those redactions to be presented in a separate application.
Ruling
Judge Paul G. Gardephe endorsed the application with the statement: “The Application is granted.” Thus, the court granted Imperbel permission to file redacted versions of the specified documents. The opinion text does not provide a separate ruling on Soprema’s contemplated application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.