LAVVAN, Inc. v. Amyris, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-07386
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In LAVVAN, Inc. v. Amyris, Inc., Judge Oetken denied Amyris’s sealing motion and ordered the status report unsealed.
LAVVAN, Inc. and Amyris, Inc.; the ruling required the status report to be made publicly available and set deadlines for the parties’ next filings.
What happened
In LAVVAN, Inc. v. Amyris, Inc., the parties did not comply with the court’s directive to file a joint status letter. Amyris asked to file a version with a few redactions, citing the parties’ agreement to keep arbitration-related matters confidential. Lavvan opposed that request.
The court explained that the public’s right to access court filings generally applies to documents relevant to the court’s work. It concluded that the arbitration and its general timing were already public in this case and that the arbitration’s timing would be relevant to arguments about possibly pausing the case. The court therefore determined that the redacted information was, or would be, part of a court filing subject to public access.
Judge Oetken denied Amyris’s motion to seal and ordered the February 1, 2023 status report unsealed and docketed. He also directed the parties to discuss further proceedings, including whether pausing the case was appropriate, and set deadlines for a joint letter or separate letters.
The detailed version
- LAVVAN, Inc. v. Amyris, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07386
- James Oetken
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
The parties failed to comply with the court’s directive to file a joint status letter. Amyris then filed a letter motion seeking permission to file a status letter containing several redactions. Lavvan opposed the motion. Amyris’s position was based on an agreement treating matters related to the arbitration as confidential.
Court’s Analysis
The court discussed the presumption that the public may access court filings. Under the Second Circuit’s test, that presumption applies when a filing is a “judicial document”—a document relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court concluded that the redactions were not justified because the fact that an arbitration occurred and its general timing had already become public through the parties’ dispute over whether arbitration was proper and a related appeal. The court also determined that the arbitration’s timing would necessarily be relevant to the parties’ positions about a possible stay, or pause, in this case. Accordingly, the redacted portions were judicial documents if they were not already.
Ruling
The court denied Amyris’s letter motion to seal, ECF No. 79, and ordered the February 1, 2023 status report, ECF No. 80, unsealed and docketed. The court directed the parties to continue discussing further proceedings, including whether a stay was warranted. It required a joint letter stating each party’s position by February 15, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. If the parties could not complete a joint letter, each party was required to file its own letter by February 16, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.