Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2023

Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:20-cv-08872
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Roth v. Armistice Capital, Judge Rochon granted redactions of nonparties’ personal information and kept unredacted exhibits sealed.

Who this affects

Vaxart, Inc. and Armistice Capital, LLC received permission to file redacted exhibits; the nonparty individuals whose personal information appeared in the exhibits received privacy protection; and public access to the unredacted exhibits remained restricted.

What happened

In Andrew E. Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC, Vaxart, Inc., with Armistice Capital’s consent, asked to redact personal information from exhibits supporting a summary-judgment motion. The requested information included nonparties’ phone numbers and account numbers.

The plaintiff did not oppose the request. The court found that the redactions protected privacy, were narrowly limited, and did not interfere with the public’s ability to understand or monitor the case.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the motion to file redacted exhibits and ordered that the unredacted versions remain under seal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08872
Judge
Rochon
Date
June 5, 2023

Background

Nominal Defendant Vaxart, Inc. asked the court for permission to file redacted versions of four exhibits that Armistice Capital, LLC intended to submit in support of a motion for summary judgment. Vaxart and Armistice sought to redact personal identifying information belonging to individuals who were not parties to the case, including personal mobile telephone numbers and account numbers. Armistice consented to the request, and the plaintiff did not oppose it.

Court’s analysis

The court recognized a general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It concluded, however, that protecting nonparties’ personal identifying information justified limited redactions. The court found that the redactions were essential to protect privacy and narrowly tailored because the information was not relevant to the claims or defenses and did not help the public monitor or understand the judicial process.

Ruling

The court GRANTED the motion to file redacted versions of the exhibits. It ordered that the unredacted versions of those documents remain under seal.

Judge

The order was signed by United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.