Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-04736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger, Judge Cote received a request to seal cellphone records, but the submitted text contains no court ruling.
The requested redaction concerns Defendant Joanna Lanni’s personal cellphone number and affects public access to the exhibit filed with her summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger concerns a letter from counsel for Defendant Joanna Lanni asking Judge Denise L. Cote’s court for permission to seal an exhibit filed with Lanni’s summary-judgment motion.
The exhibit contains excerpts from AT&T records for Lanni’s personal cellphone, including her private cellphone number. The letter argues that the number should be hidden to protect privacy while leaving the rest of the exhibit available to the public.
The submitted text is a party’s letter-motion, not a court order, and does not show that Judge Denise L. Cote granted or denied the request. It therefore does not establish a ruling on sealing.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger · No. 1:22-cv-04736
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 30, 2023
Document and procedural posture
The submitted document is an October 23, 2023 letter from Scott B. McBride of Lowenstein Sandler, identified as counsel for Defendant Joanna Lanni. The letter asks the court for permission to file Exhibit 80 under seal, or with limited redactions, in connection with Lanni’s motion for summary judgment.
Requested sealing
The letter states that Exhibit 80 contains excerpts from AT&T phone records associated with Lanni’s personal cellphone. It says the records include calls placed by Lanni and her private cellphone number. The requested redaction would remove only the personal cellphone number from public view.
Legal argument
The letter describes the Second Circuit’s three-step approach to public access: determining whether the material is a judicial document, assessing the strength of the public-access presumption, and balancing that presumption against competing interests such as personal privacy. It argues that, although the exhibit is a judicial document, privacy interests in a personal cellphone number outweigh the public-access interest and that the proposed redaction is narrowly tailored.
Disposition
The submitted text contains the defendant’s request and argument but no ruling by the court. It does not state whether Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the letter-motion.
Name discrepancy
The supplied case name is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rosenberger, while the letter identifies the matter as “SEC v. Joanna Lanni,” Civil No. 22-4736 (DLC). The source materials do not explain this discrepancy.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.