Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-03773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Manbro Energy v. Chatterjee Advisors, Judge Schofield granted sealing requests, keeping specified documents sealed and requiring redactions to protect confidential information.
Manbro Energy Corporation, Chatterjee Advisors, LLC, Chatterjee Fund Management, LP, Chatterjee Management Company, and Purnendu Chatterjee, as well as nonparties whose confidential or personal information appeared in the specified filings.
What happened
Manbro Energy Corporation and the Chatterjee defendants asked the court to seal some filings and redact others connected to their competing summary-judgment motions and the defendants’ request to exclude expert evidence. The materials included information about investors, employees, shareholders, valuations, business discussions, and other financial matters.
The court granted the application. Documents listed in Appendix A were to remain under seal, and documents listed in Appendix B were to be redacted. The court also directed the defendants to refile Exhibits 31 and 33 under seal because the versions previously filed appeared to be incorrect.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order in Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC et al. The order addressed access to specified court filings and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03773
- Lorna Schofield
- June 3, 2022
Nature of the application
The parties jointly requested that certain materials related to their cross-motions for summary judgment and the defendants’ motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Dr. Antoinette Schoar be filed under seal or in redacted form. The request was made under the parties’ confidentiality order.
Information at issue
The materials contained or referred to information designated as confidential discovery material, including information about nonparty investors, personal contact information for defendants’ employees, nonparty shareholders of Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Haldia’s valuations and projections, defendants’ internal business discussions, negotiations with nonparties, and other financial information concerning Haldia.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the application. The documents listed in Appendix A were to remain under seal. The documents listed in Appendix B were to be redacted, with unredacted and highlighted versions filed under seal and redacted versions filed publicly. The court also directed the defendants to refile Exhibits 31 and 33 under seal because it appeared that incorrect versions had been filed at Docket No. 201.
The opinion addressed public access to these specified filings and the protection of confidential business and personal information. It did not state a ruling on the merits of the parties’ summary-judgment motions or the motion to exclude.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.