Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 29, 2022

Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:21-cv-01054
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Red Rock Sourcing v. JGX: Judge Cronan granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ request to seal portions of a proposed amended complaint.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Red Rock Sourcing LLC and Coronado Distributing LLC’s proposed filing, Syd Ghermezian and Triple Five Worldwide, LLC, whose designated documents were discussed, and public access to the court filing.

What happened

In Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC, the plaintiffs asked to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint with redactions based on documents marked confidential under a protective order.

The court agreed that redactions to paragraphs 149 and 165 through 171 were appropriate, but denied the request to redact paragraphs 125 and 127 through 132. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a revised version by January 3, 2023.

Judge John P. Cronan also directed the Clerk of Court to close docket numbers 254 and 255. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.

The detailed version

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

Case
Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01054
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Dec. 29, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs, Red Rock Sourcing LLC and Coronado Distributing LLC, asked to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint under seal in part. They said some new allegations were based on documents produced by Syd Ghermezian and Triple Five Worldwide, LLC, which had designated the documents as confidential under a protective order.

The plaintiffs requested redactions concerning, among other things, management of the hand-sanitizer business, the corporate structure of Triple Five entities, CFSB’s involvement in Triple Five Worldwide’s operations, and the defendants’ alleged treatment of the plaintiffs’ rights and public safety. The plaintiffs said they had challenged some of the confidentiality designations but sought redactions to avoid disclosing information they considered confidential.

Ruling

The court granted in part the request to redact the proposed complaint. It agreed that redactions to paragraphs 149 and 165 through 171 were proper because the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible was outweighed by other factors.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to redact paragraphs 125 and 127 through 132, citing letters from counsel for Syd Ghermezian and Triple Five Worldwide. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a revised proposed Second Amended Complaint with redactions consistent with the order by January 3, 2023.

The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket numbers 254 and 255. This order addressed access to and redaction of the proposed pleading; it did not resolve the underlying claims.

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.