Movora LLC v. Gendreau

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MOVORA LLC (f/k/a OSSIUM )
NEWCO LLC); OSSIUM BIDCO, LLC; )
and VETERINARY ORTHOPEDIC )
IMPLANTS, LLC (f/k/a VETERINARY )
ORTHOPEDICS IMPLANTS, INC.), )
)
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim )
Defendants, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N23C-05-034 MAA CCLD
)
CLAUDE GENDREAU; THE CLAUDE )
GENDREAU INVESTMENT TRUST )
U/A/D MARCH 16, 2013; PATRICK )
GENDREAU; BRIAN BEALE; and )
TIMOTHY VAN HORSSEN, )
)
)
Defendants/Counterclaim
)
Plaintiffs. )

ORDER GRANTING BELATED REQUEST REGARDING DOCKET
ENTRY BASED ON COUNSEL’S EXCUSABLE NEGLECT

1. On December 2, 2024, this Court issued its Memorandum Opinion

resolving Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.1 (The

“Memorandum Opinion”). The Court granted Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’

1
D.I. 249.
Motion in part and denied the Motion in part.2 The Court denied the

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.3

2. Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 5(g)(4), the Memorandum Opinion

was filed under seal.4 Contemporaneously with the Memorandum Opinion, the

Court issued a Notice of Intent to Unseal, stating it would “unseal the decision

unless, within seven (7) days, the Court receives a written notice from either party

setting the grounds for any continued restriction and requesting determination

whether good cause exists therefore.”5

3. The Court issued a public version of its Memorandum Opinion on

December 16, 2024.6 Having received no written notice from either party requesting

redactions from the Memorandum Opinion by the deadline presented in the Notice

of Intent to Unseal, the Court made the full contents of the Memorandum Opinion

publicly available.

4. On January 21, 2025, more than a month after the Court filed a public

version of the Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiffs filed a letter asking this Court to

remove the public version of the Memorandum Opinion and replace it with a version

which redacts certain text containing confidential information.7 According to

2
Id.
3
Id.
4
D.I. 250 at 1.
5
Id. at 1-2.
6
D.I. 257.
7
D.I. 261
Plaintiffs, Defendants “believe that removal of information that is already in the

public docket for an extended period of time is unnecessary,” and “believe that the

information sought to be sealed will necessarily become part of the public record at

the upcoming trial,” but “do not otherwise oppose this request.”8

5. When a party fails to meet a deadline imposed by the Court, said party

must show that its “failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.”9 Plaintiffs

explain they “only recently became aware of [the] publicly filed confidential

references during a meet-and-confer with counsel for Defendants on January 20,

2025.”10 Given that Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs request, the Court finds the

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond with redactions by the deadline constitutes excusable

neglect and will grant Plaintiffs’ request.

6. The Court notes, however, that the Memorandum Opinion has been

publicly accessible for over a month, and is available, in full, on Westlaw.11 The

Court delayed its public filing of the Memorandum Opinion for two weeks to give

the parties the opportunity to redact information from the public version, but the

parties failed to take that opportunity. The Court is unable to reverse any damage

8
Id. at 2.
9
Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(b).
10
D.I. 261 at 2.
11
Movora LLC v. Gendreau, 2024 WL 5118502 (Del. Super. Dec. 2, 2024).
which is potentially already inflicted by the existing public version of the

Memorandum Opinion.

7. Contemporaneously with this Order, the Court will issue a corrected

redacted Memorandum Opinion and notify Westlaw of the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2025