Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 12, 2024
Docket1:22-cv-03476
StatusUnknown

This text of Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. (Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc.) 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
Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

GIBSON DUNN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 te Tel 212.351.4000 USDC SDNY www.gibsondunn.com DOCUMENT Reed Brodsky Direct: +1 212.351.5334 ELECTRONICALLY FILED |} 2. «1212616235 April 11, 2024 DOC #: RBrodsky@gibsondunn.com DATE FILED:_ 4/12/2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger United States Magistrate Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St, Courtroom 18D New York, NY 10007 Re: | Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc., No. 22 Civ. 3476 (RWL) Dear Judge Lehrburger: Pursuant to Rule III.B of the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the Appendix containing Rules for Redactions and Filing Under Seal, and the Court’s Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, ECF No. 47 (“Protective Order”), Plaintiff Tang Capital Partners, LP (“Tang Capital”) respectfully submits this letter-motion to seal certain materials in connection with its forthcoming summary judgment and Daubert motion papers. With respect to its own documents filed in connection with this briefing, including excerpts of the deposition transcripts of Tang Capital witnesses, Tang Capital seeks permission file public versions of these documents with minor redactions covering sensitive business information such as account numbers, the identity of Tang Capital’s counterparties, and the names of investments not at issue in this case. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (outlining “countervailing factors” that weigh in favor of confidentiality notwithstanding the presumption of public court proceedings). With respect to Defendant BRC’s (and other third parties’) documents that Tang Capital is filing in connection with this briefing, Tang Capital seeks leave to preliminarily file under seal all discovery materials BRC or third parties designated “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order, and to redact quotations of these materials in Tang Capital’s briefs. While Tang Capital does not believe all this information must be permanently sealed on the public docket, at this juncture it is filing the unredacted versions of these documents under seal in observance of BRC’s and third parties’ confidentiality designations. Tang Capital respectfully proposes that, after the pending motions are fully briefed on May 31, 2024, the parties be allowed two weeks to review each other’s filings; meet and confer to determine what of their discovery materials filed by the other party should be re-filed publicly; and then apply for permission to maintain under seal any materials filed by the other party that the producing party believes should remain permanently seal. Tang Capital and BRC should also be directed to notify any third party whose discovery materials marked Confidential they

Abu Dhabi - Beijing - Brussels - Century City - Dallas - Denver - Dubai - Frankfurt - Hong Kong - Houston - London - Los Angeles Munich + New York + Orange County + Palo Alto » Paris - Riyadh San Francisco + Singapore « Washington, D.C.

GIBSON DUNN

Hon. Robert W. Lehrburger, U.S.M.J. April 11, 2024 Page 2 filed in their briefing, so that these third parties have notice and reasonable opportunity to appear and move for permanent sealing of their discovery materials within two weeks of the completion of the briefing. Tang Capital proposes this approach as an efficient way to address all at once the sealing issues associated with the pending motions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Reed Brodsky Reed Brodsky The request to file under seal provisionally is granted. With respect to both parties' motions, the parties shall follow the proposed schedule and plan herein for addressing redactions following completion of briefing. The Court appreciates the parties' cooperation. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the letter motions at Dkts. 142 and 154.

SO ORDERED: je— 4/12/2024 HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tang-capital-partners-lp-v-brc-inc-nysd-2024.