Roosevelt Parent LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-01244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Roosevelt Parent v. Select Portfolio, Judge Caproni granted an application to seal limited portions of plaintiffs’ response to a dismissal motion.
The ruling affected Roosevelt Parent LLC and the other plaintiffs, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the filing.
What happened
Roosevelt Parent LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. involved the parties’ request to keep limited portions of plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss under seal.
The requested sealed information concerned a confidential regulatory matter involving the defendant and plaintiffs’ competitively sensitive information. The parties proposed filing a public version with narrow redactions.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application and ordered plaintiffs to file the publicly available version, with narrowly tailored redactions, by May 30, 2023.
The detailed version
- Roosevelt Parent LLC v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01244
- Valerie Caproni
- May 23, 2023
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to permit plaintiffs to file under seal limited portions of plaintiffs’ memorandum opposing Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The letter said the same information had previously been sealed in the complaint and in the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Requested Sealing
The parties identified two categories of information for sealing: details about a confidential regulatory matter involving the defendant and plaintiffs’ competitively sensitive information. The defendant stated that the regulatory information was subject to the bank examination privilege, which protects certain communications between banks and their examiners. The letter also said that the relevant regulator had requested that the information be filed under seal. The parties proposed narrow redactions and a public version of the opposition.
Ruling
The court granted the application. Plaintiffs were required to file a public version of their response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, with narrowly tailored redactions, no later than Tuesday, May 30, 2023. The provided opinion does not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.