Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman

Full title: INNOVATUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEUMAN, ANTONY…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Nov 15, 2021

18 Civ. 4252 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2021)

Opinion

18 Civ. 4252 (LLS) 18 Civ. 7142 (LLS)

11-15-2021

INNOVATUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEUMAN, ANTONY MITCHELL, RITZ ADVISORS, LLC, GREG WILLIAMS, DARYL CLARK and AMANDA ZACHMAN, Defendants. MV REALTY, PBC, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INNOVATUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant.

LOUIS L. STANTON U.S.D.J.

ORDER

LOUIS L. STANTON U.S.D.J.

Innovatus writes to supplement MV Realty's October 25, 2021 letter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 219) portions of MVs response (Dkt. No. 220) to Innovatus's October 11, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 207). See Dkt. No. 227.

Considering Innovatus's supplemental letter, the Court grants MVs letter motion to seal. The letter response (Dkt. No. 220) may be filed with the proposed redactions, and Exhibit 4 may be filed wholly under seal. The Court previously agreed that the information contained in Exhibit 4 discloses "business thought processes and reveals, to some degree, the roadmap Innovatus has used and continues to use in its RTL business", and therefore, it may remain sealed at this stage, as long as it is understood that the temporarily protected information may ultimately need to be revealed at trial.

MV also writes in response to Innovatus's November 5, 2021 letter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 229), stating that it does not seek to seal the information redacted by Innovatus in its November 5, 2021 letter motion (Dkt. No. 228), with the exception of Exhibit F, which MV describes as a patent license agreement with a third party that includes ``a confidentiality provision and identifies terms on which the third party was willing to grant the license to MV". See Dkt. No. 231.

While the attached agreement does include a section prohibiting the disclosure of "confidential information" (as defined in the agreement in Section 9), that provision does not render the agreement itself, or any terms contained therein, confidential. Therefore, the Court does not find justification for sealing Exhibit F and Innovatus's letter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 229), as supplemented by MVs letter (Dkt. No. 231), is denied.

So Ordered.