Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-04252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Innovatus Capital Partners v. Neuman, Judge Stanton’s filing is a request to seal materials, and the text shows no court ruling.
Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC and the MV Realty Parties, whose designated confidential information is the subject of the requested redactions; the request also concerns public access to the filing.
What happened
In Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman, Innovatus’s lawyer asked the court for permission to file under seal parts of Innovatus’s opposition to the MV Realty Parties’ motion in limine. The letter says the proposed redactions would protect information labeled “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.”
The letter states that the information could reveal marketing, financial, and business-development strategies. It also describes a protective order governing confidential information and asks that the opposition be filed under seal while the MV Realty Parties provide any further briefing.
The provided text does not show a ruling or other court action on the request. Judge Stanton is identified as the assigned judge, but the document is a lawyer’s request rather than an order.
The detailed version
- Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman · No. 1:18-cv-04252
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 5, 2022
Document and request
The provided document is a September 30, 2022 letter from Michael H. McGinley of Dechert, counsel for Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC. The letter asks Judge Louis L. Stanton for permission to file under seal portions of Innovatus’s opposition to the MV Realty Parties’ Motion in Limine No. 2.
The letter identifies Innovatus as the plaintiff in Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman and as the defendant and cross-claimant in a related action involving MV Realty PBC, LLC. It describes the “MV Realty Parties” as Jonathan Neuman, Antony Miller, Ritz Advisors, LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark, Amanda Zachman, and MV Realty PBC, LLC in the roles stated in the letter.
Basis for requested sealing
Innovatus’s counsel says the proposed redactions would protect references to and quotations from information that the MV Realty Parties designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” under the protective order. The letter quotes the protective order’s definition of that designation as information that the designating party believes in good faith could cause serious financial, competitive, or other injury if disclosed, and that less restrictive means cannot avoid.
The letter cites the standard that a court may seal judicial documents when sealing is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. It also states that courts routinely protect materials revealing marketing strategy, financial analysis, and business-development strategy. The letter references the protective order’s requirements concerning federal filing rules, the court’s standing order on electronic filing under seal, and the judge’s individual rules.
Disposition shown in the text
The document asks for permission to file the opposition under seal pending any further briefing from the MV Realty Parties. The provided text does not include an order granting or denying the request, and it does not show any other ruling by Judge Stanton. Accordingly, the document reflects a sealing request, not a decided motion or merits ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.