Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information and Advisory Services, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-02939
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sterling Select II v. Argus Information, Judge Cronan continued sealing specified complaint passages and directed filing of redacted and sealed versions.
Sterling Select II Advisory LLC, Argus Information and Advisory Services, LLC, Argus Information and Advisory Services, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the complaint were affected. The ruling kept specified complaint information from public disclosure while allowing a partially redacted version to be filed publicly.
What happened
Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information and Advisory Services, LLC concerns disputes over contracts involving a sports-and-entertainment data product and revenue sharing.
The parties jointly asked to narrow proposed redactions and to file a partially redacted complaint publicly while filing the complete complaint under seal. They identified trade-secret details and confidential commercial and financial information in specified paragraphs.
Judge Cronan found continued sealing appropriate under the standard for balancing public access against confidential business information. The court directed the parties to file the proposed partially redacted complaint and the complete complaint under seal, and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information and Advisory Services, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02939
- John Cronan
- May 23, 2024
Background
The dispute arises from a series of contracts between Sterling Select II Advisory LLC and Argus Information and Advisory Services, LLC, and Argus Information and Advisory Services, Inc. The parties began their business relationship in 2016 through a Business Development Agreement and a related Statement of Work concerning potential development of data analytics products in the Sports and Entertainment sector. They later entered additional Statements of Work concerning development and commercialization of an S&E product and the parties’ revenue-sharing structure. The agreements included confidentiality provisions.
Sealing request
The parties jointly requested permission to file a revised, partially redacted complaint and to file the unredacted complaint under seal. They narrowed the proposed redactions after the case was removed from New York state court to the federal court.
The parties argued that paragraphs 25, 114, 116, and 145 disclosed proprietary details about the S&E product, including information about its development and functionality. They also argued that paragraphs 26–27, 29–30, 35, 43, 45–46, 48, 51–53, 138, 145, 177, 180, 265, 269–270, and 309 contained confidential, competitively sensitive commercial and financial information concerning strategy, compensation, and revenue sharing.
Court’s ruling
The court considered the parties’ arguments under the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, which recognizes a presumption of public access to judicial documents but allows that presumption to be overcome by countervailing interests such as trade secrets and confidential proprietary information. The court’s order states that continued sealing was appropriate.
The parties were to file the proposed partially redacted complaint and the complete unredacted complaint under seal. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 15. The text does not state that the court reached the merits of the parties’ underlying contract dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.