Mossberg Corporation v. Raymond James Trust, N.A.
Plaintiff: Mossberg Corporation
Defendant: Raymond James Trust, N.A.
Case Number: 3:2023cv00780
Filed: June 15, 2023
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Thomas O Farrish
Referring Judge: Jeffrey A Meyer
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgment
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 20, 2023 Filing 12 COMPLAINT against Raymond James Trust, N.A., filed by Mossberg Corporation.(Krasnow, Elizabeth)
July 13, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER granting the plaintiff's #9 MOTION to Seal Docket Entries 1, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6. The plaintiff, Mossberg Corporation ("Mossberg") filed a complaint on the public docket containing pricing and share details of a Stock Purchase and Redemption Agreement. It attached the agreement and its several amendments as exhibits, along with other documents related to the dispute. It now regrets its decision to file all of this information on the public docket in unredacted form, and it has moved the Court for an order sealing its own filings, and allowing it to replace those filings with versions in which pricing, share, and other assertedly-confidential information is redacted.Courts in the Second Circuit follow a three-step process in determining whether to seal documents that have been filed with them. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). First, the Court determines whether the document is a "judicial document" to which a presumption of public access attaches. Id. at 119. Second, if the document is indeed a judicial document, the Court determines the weight to be given to the presumption under the circumstances of the case. Id. Third, after determining the weight to be accorded to the presumption, the Court "balance[s] the competing considerations against it." Id. at 120. "The burden of demonstrating that a document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action." DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997).Here, the documents sought to be sealed are plainly judicial documents. Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Fed. Trade Commn v. Abbvie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013) for the proposition that "[a] complaint, which initiates judicial proceedings, is the cornerstone of every case, the very architecture of the lawsuit, and access to the complaint is almost always necessary if the public is to understand a court's decision"). Mossberg concedes this point. (Pl.'s Memo. of L., ECF No. 9-1, at 4.) It argues, however, that [t]he weight of the presumption of access is extremely low because the information it seeks to redact is incidental and immaterial to [its] claim for declaratory relief." Id.The Court disagrees that the weight to be afforded to the presumption is "extremely low" in this instance. In performing the second step of the Lugosch analysis, courts consider "the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). "Generally, the information will fall somewhere on a continuum from matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely to insure their irrelevance." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1049. Complaints are always "highly relevant to the exercise of Article III power," because "[o]f all the records that may come before a judge, a complaint is among the most likely to affect judicial proceedings." Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 142. The cases cited by Mossberg either do not involve the sealing of portions of an operative complaint (see Pl.'s Memo. of L., ECF No. 9-1, at 7) (citing, inter alia, Castelluccio v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 3:09-cv-1145 (DJS), 2013 WL 12319859, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2013), a case that involved a motion to seal exhibits submitted with summary judgment motions)), or involve sealing portions of a complaint for reasons not implicated here. (See id. at 4) (citing Kleftofiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp., 411 F. Supp. 3d 216, 255 (D. Conn. 2019), a case involving the redaction of sensitive personal information).Even so, there is authority for allowing the limited redactions that Mossberg seeks here. For example, in P&L Development, LLC v. Gerber Products Co., No. CV-21-5382 (MKB) (AYS), 2022 WL 94380, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2022), the court permitted redaction of a price term from a complaint, because "[t]he limited nature of the pricing information sought to be sealed... along with the sensitive competitive nature thereof, [led] the [c]ourt to conclude that sealing of price information is appropriate." The P&L Development court also concluded that the information sought to be sealed "is not critical to... understanding the Complaint" and that "[o]n balance, [the defendant's] business interest in preserving the confidentiality of this particular limited information outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." Id., at *6. In this case, as in P&L Development, the proposed redactions are very limited, and the confidential nature of the information behind them is supported by a declaration from a knowledgeable corporate officer.Mossberg's motion is therefore granted, but the Court notes that it may be missing context because the defendant has not yet appeared and had an opportunity to comment. Accordingly, the Court's order is without prejudice to revisiting the issue once the defendant appears. Cf. id., at *7 ("[T]his limited sealing is without prejudice to any renewed request to unseal this information as may become necessary as this case is litigated."). But in the meantime, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to seal the documents at ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6. Mossberg is directed to refile the redacted materials at ECF No. 9-3 under the "Complaint" CM/ECF event. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/13/23. (Wood, R.)
June 29, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER. The Court REFERS to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish plaintiffs motion to seal (Doc. #9 ). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/29/2023.Motions referred to Thomas O. Farrish(Lewis, D)
June 28, 2023 Filing 9 MOTION to Seal Docket Entries 1, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6 by Mossberg Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Declaration of Michael Goldman, #3 Exhibit A - Redacted)(Krasnow, Elizabeth)
June 16, 2023 Filing 8 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Raymond James Trust, N.A.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Elizabeth Norris Krasnow* *Kelley Drye & Warren LLP* *3 World Trade Center, 175 Greenwich Street, 10007* *New York, NY 10013*. (Freberg, B)
June 16, 2023 Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #5 Electronic Filing Order, #6 Protective Order, #4 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #2 Disclosure Statement filed by Mossberg Corporation, #1 Complaint,, filed by Mossberg Corporation, 3 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, Signed by Clerk on 6/16/2023.(Freberg, B)
June 16, 2023 ENTERED IN ERROR - Filing fee received from Halloran & Sage: $402.00, receipt number #783369. (Freberg, B) Modified on 6/16/2023 - docketed on wrong case (Freberg, B).
June 15, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 6 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/15/2023.(Freberg, B)
June 15, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/15/2023.(Freberg, B)
June 15, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 4 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 8/14/2023; Discovery due by 12/15/2023; Dispositive Motions due by 1/19/2024. Signed by Clerk on 6/15/2023.(Freberg, B)
June 15, 2023 Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 6/15/2023.(Perez, J.)
June 15, 2023 Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Oliver, T.)
June 15, 2023 Filing 2 Disclosure Statement [Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement] by Mossberg Corporation. (Krasnow, Elizabeth)
June 15, 2023 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Raymond James Trust, N.A., as Trustee ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-7384356.), filed by Mossberg Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Stock Purchase and Redemption Agreement, #2 Exhibit 2 - Acceptance by Successor Trustee (Raymond James Trust N.A.), #3 Exhibit 3 - Subordinated Note, #4 Exhibit 4 - Subordination Agreement, #5 Exhibit 5 - Pledge and Security Agreement, #6 Exhibit 6 - Stock Repurchase Agreement, #7 Exhibit 7 - Iver Election, #8 Civil Cover Sheet)(Krasnow, Elizabeth)
June 15, 2023 Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Raymond James Trust, N.A., as Trustee. (Krasnow, Elizabeth)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mossberg Corporation v. Raymond James Trust, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mossberg Corporation
Represented By: Elizabeth Norris Krasnow
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Raymond James Trust, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?