Hennrick, M.D. v. MIR Scientific, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 29, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-04945
StatusUnknown

This text of Hennrick, M.D. v. MIR Scientific, LLC (Hennrick, M.D. v. MIR Scientific, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hennrick, M.D. v. MIR Scientific, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wae eK KENNETH HENNRICK, : Plaintiff, : 21 Civ. 4945 (LGS) -against- : ORDER MIR SCIENTIFIC, LLC, : Defendant. : LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on June 25, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to redact and file under seal an unredacted version of the Complaint at Docket No. 1. Dkt. No. 9. It is hereby ORDERED that, Defendant’s motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the Complaint at Docket No. 1, as well as the motion to seal at Docket No. 9, will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached Appendix will have access. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Filing the above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. It is further The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 9. Dated: June 29, 2021 New York, New York

LoRNa G. Scitoub UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------- X KENNETH HENNRICK, M.D., : : Civil Action 1:21-cv-04945-LGS Plaintiff, : : -against- : : MIR SCIENTIFIC, LLC, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- X ACCESS LIST FOR SEALED COMPLAINT Counsel for Defendant miR Scientific, LLC Littler Mendelson P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Telephone: 212.583.9600  Barbara A. Gross, NY Bar No. 2821148 bgross@littler.com  Eric A. Savage, NY Bar No. 33166 esavage@littler.com  Alexa J. Laborda Nelson, PA Bar No. 314652, pro hac vice application to be filed alabordanelson@littler.com Counsel for Plaintiff Kenneth Hennrick, M.D. Nisar Law Group, P.C. One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., Ste. 4600 New York, NY 10165 Ph: (646) 889-1007  Casey Wolnowski cwolnowski@nisarlaw.com

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hennrick, M.D. v. MIR Scientific, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennrick-md-v-mir-scientific-llc-nysd-2021.