Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:17-cv-07417
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Coventry Capital v. EEA Life Settlements, Judge Cave limited access to ECF No. 339 and closed the related letter-motion.
EEA Life Settlements, Inc., Coventry Capital US LLC, and the selected parties with access to ECF No. 339.
What happened
In Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc., EEA asked to temporarily file parts of a reply and an exhibit under seal because they contained information from deposition transcripts that Coventry had marked confidential under a protective order. EEA said it did not believe sealing was warranted and intended to oppose any later request by Coventry to keep the information sealed.
The court ordered that ECF No. 339 remain visible only to selected parties and directed the clerk to close the letter-motion at ECF No. 338. The order does not state whether the materials will remain sealed permanently.
Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on May 25, 2022.
The detailed version
- Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-07417
- Sarah Cave
- May 25, 2022
Background
EEA requested permission to temporarily file under seal certain portions of its reply supporting a motion to reopen the depositions of Reid S. Buerger and Joshua May. The reply quoted or described portions of those deposition transcripts and attached an email exchange referring to testimony from the depositions.
EEA said it was seeking permission only to comply with the protective order in the case. According to the letter, Coventry had provisionally designated the deposition transcripts as confidential. EEA stated that it did not want the documents to remain under seal and did not believe they met the standard for sealing. EEA also asked the court to set a schedule for Coventry to seek continued sealing, which EEA intended to oppose.
Ruling
The court ordered that ECF No. 339 remain visible only to the selected parties. It also directed the clerk to close the letter-motion at ECF No. 338. The order does not expressly state whether the court granted or denied the requested temporary sealing in those terms, and it does not state whether any permanent sealing motion or schedule was entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.