In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-03362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Romeo Power Securities Litigation: Judge Schofield allowed confidential filings supporting counsel’s withdrawal motion to remain sealed.
The order affects Romeo Power, Inc., Lionel Selwood, Lauren Webb, their counsel, and public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation, counsel for Romeo Power, Inc., Lionel Selwood, and Lauren Webb asked to file materials supporting a motion to withdraw from representing Romeo Power in redacted form, with unredacted versions available only to the court and under seal.
The court found that sealing was necessary to protect information involving the attorney-client relationship and noted that the information was not material to any issue then before the court.
The court granted the application: documents at Docket Nos. 166 and 167 were to remain redacted, and documents at Docket Nos. 168 and 169 were to remain available only to the court and under seal. Judge Lorna G. Schofield also directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 164.
The detailed version
- In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:21-cv-03362
- Lorna Schofield
- May 30, 2023
Background
Defendants Romeo Power, Inc., Lionel Selwood, and Lauren Webb’s counsel asked for permission to file documents supporting Latham & Watkins LLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Romeo Power. The request concerned a memorandum of law and a declaration. Counsel sought to file redacted versions publicly and unredacted versions ex parte—that is, for review by the court without public filing—and under seal.
Reasoning
The court recognized a presumption that the public may access judicial documents, but explained that this right is not absolute. The court concluded that filing the documents in redacted form, while keeping the unredacted versions ex parte and under seal, was necessary to prevent disclosure of information involving the attorney-client relationship. The court also found that the information was not material to any issue then presented in the case.
Ruling
The application was granted. Documents filed at Docket Nos. 166 and 167 were ordered to remain redacted. Unredacted versions filed at Docket Nos. 168 and 169 were ordered to remain ex parte and under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 164. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the underlying securities-litigation claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.