Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-06842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sterilumen v. Aeroclean Technologies, Judge Halpern granted an application to keep two filings sealed and restrict access to two others.
Aeroclean Technologies, Inc. and Sterilumen, Inc.; the public’s access to the specified filings was limited, while access remained available to the parties’ attorneys and court personnel.
What happened
Sterilumen, Inc. v. Aeroclean Technologies, Inc. concerns access to documents filed in connection with Sterilumen’s motion to dismiss. Aeroclean asked the court to keep certain filings under seal, citing confidential information about its insurance policy.
The court stated that the application was granted. It allowed Aeroclean’s March 10 declaration and letter to remain under seal and directed the Clerk to limit access to Sterilumen’s March 7 letter and the court’s March 8 endorsement to the attorneys for the parties and court personnel.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on March 13, 2023. The order addressed document access and sealing; the text provided does not state a ruling on the motion to dismiss itself.
The detailed version
- Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-06842
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 13, 2023
Background
Aeroclean Technologies, Inc. asked the court for permission to file two documents under seal in further opposition to Sterilumen, Inc.’s motion to dismiss: a March 10, 2023 declaration by Cameron S. Reuber and Aeroclean’s letter in further opposition. Aeroclean said the documents contained nonpublic, confidential information concerning its insurance policy.
Aeroclean also asked the court to direct Sterilumen to re-file its March 7 letter under seal and to issue a revised version of the court’s March 8 endorsement that omitted the text of that letter. Aeroclean argued that the documents were not relevant to the parties’ trademark dispute and that its privacy interests outweighed any public interest in access to them.
Court’s Order
The court stated: “Application granted.” The March 10 declaration and letter were permitted to remain filed under seal as Documents 43 and 44.
The court also directed the Clerk to change the viewing level for Sterilumen’s March 7 letter, Document 40, and the court’s March 8 memorandum endorsement, Document 41. Those documents were placed at the “selected parties” viewing level, meaning they could be viewed by the attorneys appearing for all parties and by court personnel.
Effect of the Order
This was an order about sealing and limiting access to filings. The opinion text provided does not state that Judge Philip M. Halpern decided the underlying motion to dismiss or the parties’ trademark dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.