Facts
- Plaintiffs, including Rebecca Bamberger Works LLC, filed a renewed motion to seal documents containing sensitive information. [lines="15-31"].
- Plaintiffs previously sought to seal their entire application along with associated declarations, which the court partially granted. [lines="38-50"].
- The court required Plaintiffs to identify specific compelling reasons for sealing only select, highly sensitive portions upon their renewed motion. [lines="58-61"].
- Plaintiffs argued that certain information, if disclosed, could harm their competitive standing in the market. [lines="174-178"].
- The court agreed to seal documents holding confidential strategies and client information to protect against competitive harm. [lines="291-291"].
Issues
- Whether Plaintiffs demonstrated compelling reasons to seal their documents to protect confidential business information and trade secrets. [lines="166-177"].
- Whether the proposed redactions adequately addressed the information that did not merit sealing in its entirety. [lines="180-185"].
Holdings
- The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to seal, affirming that compelling reasons existed to protect their business strategies and trade secrets. [lines="296-296"].
- The court directed that both unredacted and redacted versions of the declarations be considered for sealing, recognizing the necessity of safeguarding competitive interests. [lines="298-300"].
OPINION
*1 Case 1:24-cv-03543-AS Document 4 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Plaintiff, 24-CV-3543 (AS) -against- ORDER SAVERIO AMELIO and PPA CARMINE AMELIO,
Defendants. ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge:
On May 7, 2024, this action was removed from the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Litchfield, Connecticut. See Dkt. 1. Defendants assert that jurisdiction in this Court is proper by reason of diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), “defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall” make the required filings “in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending.” See also Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd. , 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“For cases removed from state court, venue is proper in the federal district which embraces the state court from which the action was removed.”). The District of Connecticut is the federal district that embraces all state courts in Connecticut. 28 U.S.C. § 86. Removal to this Court was therefore improper.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the Court may sua sponte remand a case for a procedural defect within 30 days of the filing of the notice of removal. Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth. , 435 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, this case is remanded to state court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to: (1) mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court of the Superior Court in the District of Litchfield, Connecticut, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1447(c); and (2) close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10 , 2024
New York, New York
ARUN SUBRAMANIAN United States District Judge