Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-08139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management, Judge Furman temporarily granted defendants’ motion to seal two exhibits pending review during summary judgment.
The order temporarily affects defendants Lazard Asset Management LLC and Keri Tusa’s request to redact two exhibits, and gives plaintiff Manmohan Uttarwar an opportunity to object.
What happened
In Manmohan Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management LLC et al., the defendants asked to file two exhibits with limited redactions. They said the exhibits contained confidential information about a workforce reduction and compensation, including four specific monetary amounts.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court did not decide whether the exhibits would remain sealed or redacted, and said it would address that issue when deciding the underlying summary-judgment motion. The plaintiff could object by filing a letter within three business days.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter-motion docket entry. The opinion does not decide the summary-judgment motion itself.
The detailed version
- Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08139
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Defendants Lazard Asset Management LLC and Keri Tusa asked for permission to file Exhibits 9 and 10 to a declaration in redacted form. The request was made in connection with defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was filed at the same time as the sealing request.
Defendants stated that the proposed redactions covered highly confidential and competitively sensitive information concerning Lazard Asset Management’s 2019 reduction in force and related compensation. They said the documents had been designated confidential under the case’s protective order and that the redactions would be narrowly limited to four references to specific monetary amounts.
Court’s ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would determine whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying summary-judgment motion. The court also gave Uttarwar three business days from the endorsement to file a letter opposing the sealing or redaction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 44.
The ruling addressed only the temporary treatment of the two exhibits. It did not decide the summary-judgment motion or the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.