PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-05649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., Judge Moses granted two sealing motions, denied two, and ordered two documents unsealed.
PRCM Advisers LLC, Two Harbors Investment Corp., and the members of the public who may access the court documents. Documents at Dockets 317 and 324 remain under seal, while documents at Dockets 314 and 320 are to be unsealed.
What happened
PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. involved requests to keep certain court documents under seal.
The court granted the sealing motions at Dockets 315 and 322, denied those at Dockets 313 and 319, and ordered the documents at Dockets 314 and 320 unsealed. It ruled that damage estimates alone were not enough to justify sealing and that a reply letter's brief descriptions of expert reports did not disclose trade secrets or other highly sensitive information.
Judge Barbara Moses directed the Clerk of Court to close all four motions and unseal the two specified documents.
The detailed version
- PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-05649
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 15, 2023
Ruling
The court ruled on four motions to seal documents. It granted the sealing motions at Dockets 315 and 322 for the reasons stated in those motions. The documents already under seal at Dockets 317 and 324 will remain under seal.
The court denied the sealing motions at Dockets 313 and 319. It held that the parties' respective damage estimates, standing alone, did not qualify for sealing under the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions. The court also found that a reply letter's brief descriptions of expert reports did not disclose trade secrets or other highly sensitive information, even though the referenced expert reports apparently discussed Pine River's claimed trade secrets in detail.
Effect of the Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Dockets 313, 315, 319, and 322 and to unseal the documents at Dockets 314 and 320. The opinion is a sealing ruling and does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.