Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman et al
| Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC |
| Jonathan Neuman, Antony Mitchell, Ritz Advisors, LLC, Greg Williams, Daryl Clark and Amanda Zachman |
| 1:2018cv04252 |
| May 11, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Louis L. Stanton |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
353
OPINION & ORDER re: (341 in 1:18-cv-04252-LLS) MOTION in Limine . filed by Amanda Zachman, Greg Williams, Antony Mitchell, Jonathan Neuman, Daryl Clark, Ritz Advisors, LLC, (297 in 1:18-cv-07142-LLS) MOTION in Limine . filed by MV Realty PBC, LLC. MV Realty Parties' ( "MV") Motion in Limine No. 2 ("To preclude evidence concerning irrelevant provisions in agreements between MV and third parties") is denied. The evidence consists of con fidentiality provisions and restrictive covenants in more than a dozen agreements by which MV restrained third parties to whom MV disclosed its business methods from revealing their nature to others. But common sense and normal experience see the c areful guarding of something as an indication that it is valuable to its owner and (failing other explanations) that those business methods were regarded as valuable by MV. The value of those methods is a core issue in the case and Innovatus has th e right to argue that MV regarded the business opportunity and methods as confidential and worth protection from disclosure. That evidence is relevant, and MV's motion to preclude it is denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/12/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
349
ORDER denying 347 Letter Motion to Seal. While noting Innovatus's politesse in suggesting that the highlighted portion of its opposition should be sealed (on MV's behalf) those portions approach the banal and shall not be sealed. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/5/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
336
ORDER: With no response from Innovatus respecting Mr. Raofield's July 26 Letter, and having checked my own calendar, it seems feasible and appropriate to pick up the March 18, 2022 schedule and set the Final Pre-Trial Conference for Friday, Octo ber 21, 2022, at 12:30 PM, at which a firm trial date can be given. As far as my own calendar is concerned, it looks as though that would be (taking into account Innovatus's expert's engagement until Friday, November 11), set to start at 11:00 AM on Monday, November 14, 2022. SO ORDERED., ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/21/2022 at 12:30 PM before Judge Louis L. Stanton.) (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 8/11/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
331
ORDER: Innovatus's application for a stay of all proceedings in this Court (0kt. No. 320) is denied, with leave to renew it in the event the Court of Appeals does not grant MV Realty's motion in that Court to dismiss Innovatus's pending appeal. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 4/18/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
324
ORDER granting 312 Letter Motion to Seal. After inspection of the exhibits, this application is granted and the four exhibits may be sealed on the above-mentioned understanding. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 3/29/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
315
SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 3/18/2022. Expert Discovery due by 7/22/2022. Motions due by 9/16/2022., Responses due by 9/30/2022, Replies due by 10/14/2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 3/18/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
298
ORDER denying 283 Letter Motion to Seal. Denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 2/14/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
258
ORDER: It would be premature to make any decision on the merits of this case before the parties have concluded fact discovery. MV Realty's request for leave to seek an order to show cause is denied. At the March 18, 2022 status conference, t he parties should be prepared to set a schedule for the submission of the joint Pre-Trial Order and associated material for a trial on the issues defined in the Court's December 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 12/13/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
246
ORDER: As appears from the parties' recent correspondence, Innovatus's requests for discovery are unquestionably overbroad. It seeks to obtain discovery of several whole categories of documents, including: Documents relating to MV ' s relationship with 777 Partners; Documents relating to financial advisors, rating agencies, and investors; Documents relating to MV's Board of Director meetings; Various internal communications. There may be some documents wit hin those spacious business areas that are relevant to the only matter remaining in this case, Innovatus's entitlement to recompense for its contributions to MV' s business if they enhanced its results, and all such documents must be pr oduced. As the Court has reiterated in multiple Orders, Innovatus is only entitled to discovery on that issue, and MV shall produce responsive documents, to whatever extent they have not yet been produced. See Orders dated December 23, 2020 and February 11, 2021. As Redibs exists only to serve Innovatus's interests in the conduct of RTL sales, and Innovatus's control over Redibs borders on the absolute, the two may be regarded as alter egos for purposes of retention and disclo sure of documents; and demands for production directed to one taken as also directed to the other, to be complied with by whichever possesses the responsive documents. See also Order dated July 7, 2021. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 11/24/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
235
ORDER denying 229 Letter Motion to Seal. Innovatus writes to supplement MV Realty's October 25, 2021 letter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 219) portions of MV's 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 MV 's 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 itis 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 confidential ity 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 d efined 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 MV ' s letter (Dkt. No. 231), is denied. So Ordered.. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 11/15/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
218
ORDER denying 212 Letter Motion to Seal. My examination of the material sought to be sealed shows that it is far below the standards of Lugosch and its progeny, and any application for its sealing would be dined. Accordingly the application in this letter (quite properly made) would be futile and is denied.. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/24/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
211
ORDER granting 208 Letter Motion to Seal. Innovatus correctly preserved MV's option to seek sealing. Although MV correctly waived it. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/21/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
201
ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's June 1, 2021 Order, Innovatus submitted briefing detailing the basis for its request to seal certain content in the MV Realty Parties' May 24, 2021 and June 9, 2021 Letters and attached Exhibit A. See Dkt. N o. 186. MV Realty filed a brief letter in response, arguing that much of the information Innovatus seeks to seal already appears on the public docket. See Dkt. No. 188. The information Innovatus seeks to seal does disclose business thought processes and reveals, to some degree, the "roadmap" Innovatus has used and continues to use in its RTL business. Bearing in mind the much- reduced level of secrecy required to be shown to justify sealing materials on discovery matters rather than on a motion addressed to the merits of the case, Innovatus may redact the requested information, to the extent such information is not already disclosed in publicly filed materials. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 8/3/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
184
ORDER granting 182 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Extension to Monday June 14 at 12 o'clock noon is allowed. So Ordered.. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 6/10/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER denying 172 Letter Motion to Seal. Denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 6/7/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
171
ORDER: Innovatus's unopposed request for an administrative stay is granted to the following extent. Innovatus has until 5:00 PM on June 10, 2021 to brief the issue of redaction of the words in the seventh through twelfth lines of the third pa ragraph of MV Realty's May 2, 2021 Letter, starting with "only through October" and ending with in its approach". Its briefing must define what in that part deserves protection from disclosure, how its disclosure would benefit its competitors, and must articulate the specific reasons for nondisclosure of the information by facts, rather than epithets and generalities. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 6/1/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
169
ORDER denying 165 Letter Motion to Seal. Denied, for lack of any showing that the interest to be protected by filing under seal outweighs the presumption of public access." As stated in the Standing Order, stipulations and confidentiality agreements are insufficient. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 5/27/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
157
ORDER: terminating 151 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. The issues in Innovatus ' s March 3, 2021 Letter and MV Realty's March 8 Response have been carefully considered and should be approached as follows : Innovatus's providing "a clear and meaningful response to the pending interrogatory (which is due on March 15) to identify the 'material' discussed in the Court 's February 11 Order ; it will finally start producing documents regarding its ow n pursuit of RTLs ; and it will answer the Requests for Admissions discussed above without further delay. In addition, it will allow MV Realty to complete its production, and to review the Stifel documents for production, based on the list of methods to be provided by Innovatus on March 15", before Realty is required to proceed further with its production. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 3/23/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER granting 133 Letter Motion to Seal. With respect to Counsels' recent letters to the Court on sealing (Jan. 19, 2021 and Jan. 21, 2021). The two exhibits may be sealed in toto. The Jan. 19, 2021 letter must be unredacted and unsealed. I n case no. 18 cv 4252, the Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the viewing level for sealed doc. 134 and 134-1 (The two letters) to public. Sealed Doc. 134 - 2 (Ex. A) and 134 - 3 (Ex. B) is to remain under seal under Selected Parties viewing le vel. In case no. 18 cv 7142, the Clerk of the Court is directed to modify the viewing level for sealed doc. 95 and 95 - 1 (The two letters) to public. Sealed Doc. 95 - 2 (Ex. A) and 95 - 3 (Ex. B) is to remain under seal under Selected Parties viewing level. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 2/12/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
147
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Accordingly, each party must reveal the degree, if any, it has used that material, and whether it is still doing so. That will furnish a pragmatic basis on which the value, experiences, utility and profitability of that m ethod can be discussed and judged. The parties and Counsel must follow that path. Failure to do so produces not illumination, but abstract argument, debate and rhetoric, which retards preparation of the case, yet increases the expense in doing so. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 2/11/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
130
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: (98 in 1:18-cv-04252-LLS) MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Amanda Zachman, Greg Williams, Antony Mitchell, Jonathan Neuman, Daryl Clark, Ritz Advisors, LLC. Innovatus's claim for an inj unction enforcing the restrictive covenant in the NOA is dismissed. Its entitlement to recompense for its contributions, to the extent that they have benefitted the enterprise, is still to be evaluated. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 12/23/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
128
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 125 Letter Motion to Seal. These portions may be redacted. Denied as too broad. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 12/9/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER denying 101 Letter Motion to Seal. I have determined each of these items in detail, and find none of them - submitted to affect the determination of a motion for summary judgment presents a "most compelling reason " to seal it from public access. See Lingosch at 123. This application is denied. The birthdates are to be redacted. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/14/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER: The issues raised in counsels' July 31, August 24, August 27, August 31, and September 1 letters are disposed of as follows: MV Realty has leave to make a single motion for summary judgment on any and all grounds available to it withou t a pre-motion conference. To the extent MV Realty requests a stay, the request is denied. After a careful item- by- item consideration by the Court, all items listed by Innovatus in the Schottland Declaration verified July 24, 2020 must be unseal ed and publicly filed without redactions, with the exceptions of INNOV0000087, INNOV0000089, INNOV0000096-0000097, INNOV0000102, INNOV0000718-0000730, INNOV0003959-0003960, which may be redacted from the public file. The penultimate sentence in the paragraph continuing on page 13 of that Declaration may redact three words, so it reads, "The [XXX] came from Innovatus." (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 9/2/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER: The issues raised in counsel's letters to the Court of May 18, June 3 and 18 (Covington) and May 22 and June 8 (Reitler) are resolved as follows: All discovery by Innovatus is stayed until 10 days after it submits to MV Realty the defi nition of confidential material required by the May 28, 2020 Order. MV Realty may proceed with discovery directed to the issue of entry by others into RTL ("Right to List") agreements, particularly as related to the issue whether knowledge of such agreements was "generally available in the public" (NOA Article II). So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 6/22/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER re: (70 in 1:18-cv-04252-LLS): The issue raised by MV Realty's counsel's letter to the Court dated April 27, 2020, which has been the subject of various applications, inquiries, and discovery processes by MV Realty and evasions by I nnovatus for years, is overdue for resolution. It is time for Innovatus to furnish the defendants in the case it brought with a clear, meaningful and reliable statement defining the confidential information it claims to have provided to those defenda nts. That requires separating what is confidential from what is not. For example, it would be hard to maintain that the language used in the RTL agreement is confidential since it is disclosed to every buyer who signs the agreement and is free to di scuss it with others. But there may be confidential reasons why those particular words were used: those reasons must be specified (which may be done privately under the litigation's confidentiality agreement) if they are to be part of the claime d Confidentiality Information.The statement must be comprehensive. It must disclose each item and element of the Business Opportunity and, with specificity, every other item of information claimed to be confidential. Whatever is not set forth cannot later be claimedto have been confidential. Terms of reservation such as "among others" or of a right to supplement are unacceptable: they destroy the purpose of having a complete list, render the statement ineffective, and subject any claim based onConfidential Information to dismissal. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 5/28/2020) (ml)
|
|
Filing
75
PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 5/11/2020) (rro)
|
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
