Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-04736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger, Judge Cote received a request to seal exhibits containing Synchronoss business information; the text states no ruling.
Karen Rosenberger, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., whose business information is described in the sealing request.
What happened
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger concerns Karen Rosenberger’s request to keep certain exhibits from public view. The request was made in a letter to Judge Denise Cote on her behalf.
The exhibits contain nonpublic accounting memoranda and other business information belonging to Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., Rosenberger’s former employer. The letter says Synchronoss provided the materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission during a pre-suit investigation and argues that the exhibits are confidential and commercially sensitive.
The provided text records the request but does not state that Judge Denise Cote granted or denied it. It therefore does not show the court’s ruling on sealing Exhibits 4 through 20.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger · No. 1:22-cv-04736
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 26, 2022
Document and request
The provided text is a September 22, 2022 letter motion submitted on behalf of Karen Rosenberger. It asks Judge Denise L. Cote for permission to file under seal Exhibits 4 through 20 of the declaration of Jenny Kramer. The letter says the proposed sealed exhibits were filed concurrently with the motion.
Reasons offered for sealing
The letter states that the exhibits contain sensitive, nonpublic accounting memoranda and other business information belonging to Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., identified as Rosenberger’s former employer. It says Synchronoss produced the materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission during a pre-suit investigation.
Rosenberger’s counsel argues that the exhibits are not “judicial documents” entitled to a presumption of public access because they are confidential documents rather than materials such as public Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Counsel also argues that sealing is appropriate because the exhibits contain commercially and competitively sensitive information that is not otherwise available to the public.
Disposition
The provided text does not include an order or state whether Judge Denise L. Cote granted or denied the request. It therefore shows only the filing of the sealing motion, not the court’s disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.