Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-04736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SEC v. Rosenberger, a filing before Judge Cote seeks to seal a personal cellphone number, but the text contains no court ruling.
Joanna Lanni’s privacy interests and the public’s access to Exhibit 39 may be affected by the requested redaction of her personal cellphone number.
What happened
The supplied case listing names Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger, but the letter itself refers to SEC v. Joanna Lanni. Defense counsel asks the court to seal Exhibit 39, which contains excerpts from AT&T records for Lanni’s personal cellphone and includes her cellphone number.
The filing argues that the exhibit is a court-related document but that Lanni’s privacy interest in her personal number outweighs the public’s access interest. It proposes redacting only the cellphone number while leaving the rest of the exhibit available.
The text is a request, not a decision: it does not say that the court granted or denied the request. The filing is addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger · No. 1:22-cv-04736
- Denise Cote
- Aug. 22, 2023
Document and request
The provided text is a defense lawyer’s letter-motion, not a judicial opinion or order. The letter itself identifies the matter as SEC v. Joanna Lanni, Civil No. 22-4736 (DLC). Counsel asks for permission to file Exhibit 39 under seal, or with limited redactions. The exhibit was submitted with Joanna Lanni’s motion for summary judgment.
Reason for requested sealing
The exhibit contains excerpts from AT&T records for Lanni’s personal cellphone. Counsel says the records include her private cellphone number. The proposed redactions remove only that number and leave the rest of the exhibit available to the public.
Legal argument
The letter explains the federal courts’ three-step public-access analysis for judicial documents. First, the court determines whether the material is a judicial document. Second, it determines the strength of the public-access presumption. Third, it balances that presumption against competing interests, including privacy.
Counsel argues that Exhibit 39 is a judicial document but that personal cellphone numbers are similar to personal identifying information. The letter relies on decisions recognizing privacy interests in cellphone numbers and argues that those interests outweigh the public-access presumption here.
Disposition
The text asks the court to grant the request to seal Exhibit 39, but it contains no ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote. It therefore does not state that the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.