Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Oct. 5, 2022

MV Realty PBC, LLC v. Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC

Judge
Louis Stanton
Docket
1:18-cv-07142
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In MV Realty PBC v. Innovatus Capital, counsel requested sealing, but the text contains no ruling by Judge Stanton.

Who this affects

Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC and the MV Realty Parties are affected by the request concerning public access to portions of a court filing.

What happened

MV Realty PBC, LLC v. Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC concerns a request to file under seal part of Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC’s opposition to MV Realty’s motion in limine. The provided document is a letter from Innovatus’s counsel to the court.

Innovatus asked to seal references and quotations from information that the MV Realty Parties had designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” under a protective order. The letter says the information concerned marketing, financial, and business-development matters and argues that disclosure could cause competitive or financial harm.

The provided text does not show a court ruling on the request. Judge Louis L. Stanton is identified as the judge, but the document is counsel’s request rather than an order granting or denying sealing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
MV Realty PBC, LLC v. Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-07142
Judge
Louis Stanton
Date
Oct. 5, 2022

Document and request

The provided text is a September 30, 2022 letter from Michael H. McGinley of Dechert LLP, identified as 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.

Basis for the request

The proposed redactions would protect references to and quotations from information designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by the MV Realty Parties under a protective order. The letter quotes the protective order’s definition of that designation as information that the designating party believes in good faith could create a substantial risk of serious financial, competitive, or other injury if disclosed, where less restrictive means would not avoid the injury.

The letter cites the general standard that judicial documents may be sealed when sealing is essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. It states that marketing strategy, financial analysis, and business-development strategy are commonly treated as proprietary information worthy of protection from public disclosure. The letter also refers to procedures in the protective order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, the court’s standing order on electronic filing under seal, and the judge’s individual practice rules.

Parties referenced

The letter says that Innovatus is the plaintiff in a related action and the defendant and cross-claimant in the MV Realty action. It defines the “MV Realty Parties” to include Jonathan Neuman, Antony Miller, Ritz Advisors, LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark, Amanda Zachman, and MV Realty PBC, LLC, in the roles described in the letter.

Disposition

The provided text contains no judicial decision granting, denying, or otherwise resolving the sealing request. It is a request for permission to file under seal, pending further briefing from the MV Realty Parties.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.