Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Harbert Discovery Fund, LP
- Paul Crotty
- 1:20-cv-09992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Enzo Biochem v. Harbert Discovery Fund, Judge Crotty received a letter arguing that a settlement agreement should not remain sealed; no court ruling appears.
The document concerns third-party defendants Elazar Rabbani and Barry W. Weiner, Enzo Biochem, Inc., the Harbert entities, and the public and Enzo shareholders who might seek access to the sealed settlement agreement.
What happened
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Harbert Discovery Fund, LP concerns a letter from counsel for third-party defendants Elazar Rabbani and Barry W. Weiner about documents filed under seal in support of their cross-motion to compel.
The letter says the documents included a settlement agreement between Enzo and Harbert and that the agreement was filed under seal because Enzo asserted that it was confidential. Rabbani and Weiner’s counsel argued that confidentiality alone did not justify sealing a judicial document and that the agreement should be publicly accessible.
The provided text does not contain a ruling or order by Judge Paul A. Crotty. It is an advocacy letter dated October 7, 2022, and does not state whether the court granted or denied the cross-motion to compel or decided whether the documents should remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Harbert Discovery Fund, LP · No. 1:20-cv-09992
- Paul Crotty
- Oct. 18, 2022
Document and procedural context
The provided text is a letter from Evan K. Farber, counsel for third-party defendants Elazar Rabbani and Barry W. Weiner, to Judge Paul A. Crotty. The letter concerns documents filed under seal in support of Rabbani and Weiner’s cross-motion to compel. It states that the court had granted them permission to file that motion at a September 22, 2022 pre-motion conference.
Arguments about sealing
The sealed materials included a settlement agreement between Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Harbert Discovery Fund, LP and Harbert Discovery Co-Investment Fund I, LP. The letter says Enzo had provided the final execution version of the agreement to Rabbani and had instructed that it be treated according to the agreement’s confidentiality provision. Counsel for Rabbani and Weiner stated that the agreement contained provisions they considered disadvantageous to Enzo and prejudicial to Rabbani and Weiner individually.
The letter cites the general presumption of public access to judicial documents and argues that a contractual confidentiality provision is not enough to overcome that presumption. Counsel stated that the third-party defendants did not believe confidential treatment was appropriate but filed the materials under seal to avoid allegations that they had violated Enzo’s asserted confidentiality obligations.
Ruling
The provided text does not include a court ruling, order, or disposition by Judge Crotty. It does not state whether the court granted or denied the cross-motion to compel, or whether the court ordered the settlement agreement or related references unsealed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.