Federal Trade Commission et al v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc. et al

Filing 332

OPINION & ORDER re: 235 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton from Kate Matuschak dated May 6, 2022 filed by People of The State of New York, 253 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton from Annette Soberats and Kate Matuschak dated 6/16/22 filed by Federal Trade Commission, 248 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Louis L. Stanton from Kate Matuschak dated May 20, 2022. filed by People of The State of New York. The NYAG states that the documents should be sealed because they contain information that was designated "Confidential" under a Protective Order agreed to by both parties. Documents submitted in connection with a motion f or summary judgment are "judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment" and "should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons." Lugosch v. Pyr amid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). "Sealing of the documents may be justified only with specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tail ored to achieve that aim." Id. at 124. The existence of a protective order is not a compelling reason to justify sealing judicial documents. Id. at 126. Without specific reasons why each individual request should be sealed, the motions to seal are denied. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 3/7/2023) (vfr)

Case 1:17-cv-00124-LLS Document 332 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, Attorney
General of the State of New York,
Plaintiffs,

17 Civ. 124

(LLS)

OPINION & ORDER

- against QUINCY BIOSCIENCE HOLDING
COMPANY, INC., a corporation;
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
liability company;

a limited

PREVAGEN, INC., a corporation
d/b/a/ SUGAR RIVER SUPPLEMENTS;
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE
MANUFACTURING, LLC, a limited
liability company; and
MARK UNDERWOOD, individually and as
an officer of QUINCY BIOSCIENCE
HOLDING COMPANY, INC., QUINCY
BIOSCIENCE, LLC, AND PREVAGEN, INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Attorney General of the State of New York (the
"NYAG")

submitted Motions to Seal several supporting documents

in conjunction with its Opposition to Defendant Mark Underwood's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, in support of the NYAG's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and its Opposition to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment.

(0kt. Nos. 235, 248, and 253).

1

Case 1:17-cv-00124-LLS Document 332 Filed 03/07/23 Page 2 of 3

Specifically , the NYAG requests that the following
documents remain under seal :
1. Exhibits to the Declaration of Kate Matuschak in Support
of the NYAG ' s Opposition to Defendant Mark Underwood ' s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
2 . The NYAG's Opposition to Defendant Mark Underwood ' s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
3. The NYAG's Response to Defendant Mark Underwood's 56 . 1
Statement
4. The NYAG ' s 56 . 1 Statement in support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment
5 . Exhibits to the Declaration of Annette Soberats in
Support of the NYAG ' s Opposition to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment
6 . The NYAG ' s Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment
7. The NYAG's Response to Defendants ' 56 . 1 Statement
The NYAG states that the documents should be sealed because
they contain information that was designated "Confidential"
under a Protective Order agreed to by both parties .
Documents submitted in connection with a motion for summary
judgment are " judicial documents to which a strong presumption
of access attaches, under both the common law and the First
Amendment " and "should not remain under seal absent the most
compelling reasons. " Lugosch v . Pyramid Co . of Onondaga , 435
F.3d 110 , 119 , 121 (2d Cir . 2006) . "Sealing of the documents may
be justified only with specific , on - the - record findings that
sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the
sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim." Id. at
124 .

2

Case 1:17-cv-00124-LLS Document 332 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 3

The existence of a protective order is not a compelling
reason to justify sealing judicial documents. Id. at 126.
Without specific reasons why each individual request should
be sealed, the motions to seal are denied.

So ordered.
Dated :

New York , New York
March 7 , 2023

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

3