PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.

S.D. New York

PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 24, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-05649·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC#: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 7/24/2020

PRCM ADVISERS LLC,

Plaintiff, No. 20-CV-5649

v. ORDER

TWO HARBORS INVESTMENT CORP.,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, PRCM Advisers LLC’s (“Pine River’s”) motion for leave to file an unredacted Complaint under seal and to file the redacted Complaint on the public docket. The motion is GRANTED as follows: IT IS ORDERED that an unredacted version of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 21, 2020 shall be temporarily filed under seal in the Court’s electronic case file in connection with this matter, at least until such time as Defendant Two Harbors Investment Corp. (“Two Harbors”) enters an appearance and the parties file the joint letter described below. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this unredacted Complaint shall be accessible to the attorneys of record in this case, the Court, and Court personnel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the redacted Complaint shall be filed in the public record in this case no later than July 27, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within one week after Two Harbors enters an appearance, the parties shall file a joint letter stating which, if any, redactions to the Complaint they believe are necessary. For each proposed redaction, the parties shall provide a justification for overcoming the “common law right of public access to judicial documents.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties are advised that the mere fact that certain information is governed by a confidentiality provision in the parties’ Management Agreement is “insufficient to demonstrate that sealing is necessary.” Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., No. 13 CV 3410 HB, 2013 WL 5322573, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (citation omitted). “Significantly, not everything that a business would rather keep secret qualifies as the sort of information that the Federal Rules allow a litigant to keep secret.” Saks Inc. v. Attachmate Corp., No. 14 CIV. 4902 CM, 2015 WL 1841136, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2015). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2020 ff ; New York, New York ( ( Ronnie Abams United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC#: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 7/24/2020

PRCM ADVISERS LLC,

Plaintiff, No. 20-CV-5649

v. ORDER

TWO HARBORS INVESTMENT CORP.,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, PRCM Advisers LLC’s (“Pine River’s”) motion for leave to file an unredacted Complaint under seal and to file the redacted Complaint on the public docket. The motion is GRANTED as follows: IT IS ORDERED that an unredacted version of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 21, 2020 shall be temporarily filed under seal in the Court’s electronic case file in connection with this matter, at least until such time as Defendant Two Harbors Investment Corp. (“Two Harbors”) enters an appearance and the parties file the joint letter described below. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this unredacted Complaint shall be accessible to the attorneys of record in this case, the Court, and Court personnel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the redacted Complaint shall be filed in the public record in this case no later than July 27, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within one week after Two Harbors enters an appearance, the parties shall file a joint letter stating which, if any, redactions to the Complaint they believe are necessary. For each proposed redaction, the parties shall provide a justification for overcoming the “common law right of public access to judicial documents.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties are advised that the mere fact that certain information is governed by a confidentiality provision in the parties’ Management Agreement is “insufficient to demonstrate that sealing is necessary.” Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., No. 13 CV 3410 HB, 2013 WL 5322573, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (citation omitted). “Significantly, not everything that a business would rather keep secret qualifies as the sort of information that the Federal Rules allow a litigant to keep secret.” Saks Inc. v. Attachmate Corp., No. 14 CIV. 4902 CM, 2015 WL 1841136, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2015). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2020 ff ; New York, New York ( ( Ronnie Abams United States District Judge

PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. (PRCM Advisers LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related