Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 10, 2023

Roosevelt Parent LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-01244
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Roosevelt Parent LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Judge Caproni granted an application to seal limited portions of a motion-to-dismiss memorandum.

Who this affects

The defendant must publicly file a redacted version of its motion-to-dismiss memorandum and provide an unredacted version to chambers; the order protects specified regulatory and business information concerning the parties.

What happened

In Roosevelt Parent LLC et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to seal limited portions of the defendant’s memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss.

They identified confidential regulatory information involving the defendant and competitively sensitive information belonging to the plaintiffs. They asked to protect the same information that had been redacted from the complaint.

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. She ordered the defendant to file a redacted version of the memorandum publicly and send an unredacted version showing the redactions to chambers.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roosevelt Parent LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01244
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Apr. 10, 2023

Background The parties jointly requested permission to seal limited portions of the defendant’s memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss. The opinion text describes two categories of information: confidential regulatory information involving the defendant and the plaintiffs’ competitively sensitive information.

Arguments for Sealing The parties argued that the regulatory information was protected by the bank examination privilege, which protects communications between banks and banking examiners. They stated that the privilege belonged to the regulator, which had not waived it and had expressly requested that the information be filed under seal. They also argued that the plaintiffs’ proprietary business information justified limited protection from public disclosure.

The parties represented that this was the same information previously redacted from the complaint. The defendant planned to file the memorandum under seal and, if permitted, file a public version containing narrow redactions.

Ruling Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. The order required the defendant to file a redacted version of its memorandum supporting the motion to dismiss on the docket and send an unredacted version highlighting the redactions to chambers. The order states a deadline of Thursday, April 14, 2022, although the application and order are dated in 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.