loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-05971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In loanDepot.com v. CrossCountry Mortgage, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice an application to keep a document sealed and requested a renewed motion.
loanDepot.com, LLC, Stuart Kolinsky, and the parties and public record concerning the compensation agreements in the document sought to be sealed.
What happened
In loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, loanDepot.com supported Defendant Stuart Kolinsky’s request to keep a document under seal. The document contained compensation agreements and terms from Kolinsky’s employment at loanDepot.com.
The court said the parties’ confidentiality agreement did not by itself establish that the document should remain sealed. It instructed loanDepot.com to file a renewed motion explaining why sealing was justified under the applicable legal test.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application without prejudice and set February 10, 2023, as the deadline for a renewed motion.
The detailed version
- loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05971
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
loanDepot.com submitted a letter supporting Defendant Stuart Kolinsky’s motion to file under seal the document identified as ECF No. 222-1. According to the letter, the attachment contained confidential incentive-compensation agreements between loanDepot.com and Kolinsky, including terms describing his compensation during his employment at loanDepot.com. loanDepot.com argued that the information was confidential under the case’s Confidentiality Order and noted that other defendants had also marked compensation terms in their own offer letters as highly restricted.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the Confidentiality Order did not determine whether a document should be filed under seal. It directed loanDepot.com, if it wanted to continue seeking sealed treatment, to file a renewed motion explaining why sealing was warranted under the test described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application without prejudice. The court directed loanDepot.com to file any renewed motion by February 10, 2023. The opinion does not state whether a renewed motion was later filed or whether the document was ultimately kept under seal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.