Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-06842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sterilumen v. Aeroclean, Judge Halpern granted sealing in part, allowing Exhibits A–C sealed but denying redactions blocking Sterilumen’s counsel.
Aeroclean, Sterilumen and its counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC, Aeroclean asked to keep an insurance policy, coverage letters, and related declaration under seal in a trademark dispute. It also asked to redact part of one exhibit so Sterilumen’s lawyers could not see it.
The court granted the application in part: Exhibits A through C may remain filed under seal, but the request to redact Section V of Exhibit B from Sterilumen’s counsel was denied. Aeroclean was directed to re-file Exhibit B under seal without those proposed redactions.
Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order dated March 6, 2023. The order addressed confidentiality and public access to court filings, not the parties’ trademark rights.
The detailed version
- Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-06842
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Aeroclean requested permission to file under seal a declaration, its insurance policy, a coverage authorization letter, and additional correspondence from its insurer. Aeroclean also proposed redactions in Section V of the coverage letter that would have prevented Sterilumen’s counsel from viewing that section. The filing stated that Sterilumen did not object to sealing the documents but did not consent to the proposed Section V redactions.
Legal standard and arguments
The filing described the Second Circuit’s framework for sealing documents. Courts consider whether a filing is a “judicial document,” how much weight to give the public-access presumption, and whether countervailing interests justify restricting access. Aeroclean argued that the insurance materials were not material to the parties’ trademark rights and contained confidential information about insurance coverage, liability limitations, litigation-risk tolerance, and other business matters. The order itself does not provide a separate explanation of its reasoning beyond the stated disposition.
Ruling
The court granted the application in part. Exhibits A through C may remain filed under seal. The request to redact Section V of Exhibit B so that Sterilumen’s counsel could not view it was denied. The defendant was directed to re-file Exhibit B under seal without the proposed Section V redactions. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order on March 6, 2023.
Effect
The ruling kept the identified exhibits under seal from public access but required the proposed Section V redactions to be removed for purposes of Sterilumen’s counsel’s access. It did not decide the parties’ underlying trademark dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.