Bionpharma Inc. v. Corerx, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-10656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bionpharma v. CoreRx, Magistrate Judge Figueredo denied CoreRx’s sealing motion without prejudice because it did not justify the proposed redactions.
CoreRx’s request to seal discovery-related filings was denied without prejudice, but the identified filings were to remain sealed pending a possible renewed motion.
What happened
In Bionpharma Inc. v. Corerx, Inc., CoreRx asked the court to seal an exhibit and redact parts of a letter filed in connection with a discovery dispute. CoreRx said the materials contained information produced by Azurity Pharmaceuticals and were covered by a protective order.
The court explained that filed materials generally are presumed accessible to the public, although that presumption is weaker for materials connected to discovery disputes. Even so, CoreRx had to identify specific and substantial reasons for secrecy and show that the proposed sealing was narrowly tailored. The court found that relying mainly on the protective order was not enough.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied CoreRx’s sealing motion without prejudice. The parties could submit a renewed motion explaining specifically why sealing was appropriate, while the clerk was directed to keep the identified filings sealed pending that motion.
The detailed version
- Bionpharma Inc. v. Corerx, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10656
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
CoreRx submitted a letter motion asking to seal its letter and an exhibit, identified as ECF Nos. 193 and 194-3. The materials were filed in connection with a discovery dispute. CoreRx stated that the materials had been produced by, or reflected information produced by, Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which had designated the information as confidential. CoreRx relied on a protective order entered by Judge Koeltl on May 9, 2022.
Legal Standard
The common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. A judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. To overcome that presumption, a court must make specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
The court explained that the presumption is generally weaker for filings connected to discovery disputes than for materials introduced at trial or submitted with dispositive motions, such as motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. Nevertheless, a party seeking to seal discovery-related materials must identify specific and substantial reasons for sealing and show that the request is narrowly tailored. Protecting commercially sensitive information and confidential business or financial information can qualify as such reasons.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that CoreRx had not explained adequately why the materials should remain sealed. CoreRx’s reliance on the protective order, without more specific reasons weighing against disclosure, was insufficient. The existence of a confidentiality order does not by itself determine whether sealing is justified once the material becomes a judicial document.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied CoreRx’s letter motion to seal without prejudice. The parties were permitted to submit a renewed letter motion explaining specifically why sealing was appropriate under the applicable public-access standard. The clerk was directed to maintain ECF Nos. 193 and 194-3 under seal pending submission of a renewed motion and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 196.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.