Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC v. Dale
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-03687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hedgeye Risk Management v. Dale, Judge Lehrburger granted sealing requests in part, kept certain exhibits sealed, and required a corrected complaint.
Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC, Darius Dale and the other defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the filed exhibits and complaint.
What happened
In Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC v. Dale, the parties asked the court to keep exhibits to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint from public view. Hedgeye asked to seal Exhibits A, B, I, R, and X; the defendants asked to seal Exhibits C, D, E, F, and R.
The court found no confidential information justifying continued sealing of Exhibits A, B, I, and X. It found that Exhibits C, D, E, F, and R contained confidential business information, including pricing and business strategy, and allowed those exhibits and related information in the complaint to remain sealed for now.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and granted Defendants’ motions. He ordered Plaintiff to file complaint copies complying with the ruling by January 3, 2024, and directed the Clerk to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 626.
The detailed version
- Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC v. Dale · No. 1:21-cv-03687
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
This order addresses the parties’ requests to seal portions of Hedgeye Risk Management’s Fourth Amended Complaint and its exhibits. Hedgeye sought to keep Exhibits A, B, I, R, and X sealed. The defendants sought to keep Exhibits C, D, E, F, and R sealed.
A complaint is a judicial document, meaning a document filed with the court, and generally carries a strong presumption of public access. The parties argued that the exhibits contained confidential business information.
Court’s Analysis
After reviewing the exhibits, the court found nothing confidential that justified sealing Exhibits A, B, I, and X. The court noted that these materials included an employment letter dated from 2010 and emails, and that Plaintiff could have referred to them in the complaint without attaching the documents or identifying confidential information.
The court reached a different conclusion for Exhibits C, D, E, F, and R. Those exhibits consisted of emails produced by the defendants during discovery and marked “Highly Confidential” under the case’s protective order. The court found that they contained confidential business information, including pricing and business strategy. The court also noted that the defendants had not voluntarily included their own documents in a court filing; Plaintiff had attached documents produced by the defendants.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and granted Defendants’ motions. Exhibits C, D, E, F, and R, along with any disclosure of their confidential information in the body of the Fourth Amended Complaint, may remain under seal for now. Plaintiff was ordered to file copies of the Fourth Amended Complaint complying with the ruling by January 3, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 626.
Effect
The order governs public access to specified exhibits and related information in the complaint. It does not decide the underlying claims described in the Fourth Amended Complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.