Roche Freedman LLP v. Jason Cyrulnik

Background

Roche Freedman LLP, along with Kyle Roche, Devin Freedman, Amos Friedland, and Edward Normand, asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to seal limited portions of papers and exhibits related to three motions in limine. Those motions sought to exclude Eric Jenkins, Vikram Kapoor, and the CryptoLeaks videos. A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be admitted.

The requested redactions covered information concerning a confidential settlement involving a third-party client of Roche Freedman, attorney-client privileged material, sensitive financial and accounting information, client names and information, investor information, payment amounts, and wire-routing and account numbers. The requesting parties argued that disclosure could harm the firm, its clients, third parties, investors, and business relationships.

Legal standard

The court’s discussion states that court records relevant to the judicial process are generally presumed to be accessible to the public. That presumption may be overcome when necessary to protect stronger interests. The court considers whether the material is a judicial document, how much weight to give the public-access presumption, and whether confidentiality or privacy interests outweigh that presumption.

The opinion explains that the public-access presumption is generally lower for non-dispositive motions in limine than for material introduced at trial or submitted with motions that could resolve claims. It also identifies confidentiality of settlement negotiations, attorney-client privileged communications, sensitive business information, and nonparty privacy interests as reasons that can justify narrow redactions.

Ruling

The order states: “APPLICATION GRANTED” and “SO ORDERED.” The court therefore granted the request to keep the specified redacted information under seal. The ruling covered limited portions of the memorandum supporting the Jenkins motion and specified exhibits to the Jenkins, Kapoor, and CryptoLeaks motions. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the case.

Effect

The ruling permits the identified confidential material to remain sealed or redacted from public court filings. It does not state that the entire filings or exhibits were sealed, and it does not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute.