“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED
nnn nnn nnn sans aK DOC #:
DATE FILED:_1/23/2020
US AIRWAYS, INC., FOR AMERICAN :
AIRLINES, INC., AS SUCCESSOR AND REAL:
PARTY IN INTEREST, : 11 Civ. 2725 (LGS)
Plaintiff, :
: ORDER
-against- :
SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ET AL., :
Defendants. :
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, by letter emailed to the Chambers inbox, dated January 17, 2020, Plaintiff US
Airways requests permission to file under seal portions of its Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”);
WHEREAS, by letter emailed to the Chambers inbox, dated January 17, 2020, Defendants
Sabre request to file under seal Exhibit E to their pre-motion letter proposing a Motion to
Compel. Exhibit E is an excerpt from Plaintiff's expert deposition, which Plaintiff designated as
confidential. Although Defendants submitted the sealing request, they “take[] no position on
whether [the deposition excerpt] justifies sealing,” and Plaintiff in turn has not presented any
justification. It is hereby
ORDERED that US Airway’s request to seal portions of the FAC is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file by January 30, 2020: (1) a redacted version of the FAC, consistent with the
proposed highlighted redactions, on the docket and (2) an unredacted version of the FAC under
seal. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted
in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing
considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner
Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the
sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and
circumstances of the particular case.”). The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to prevent
unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information. The parties are advised that the
Court retains discretion whether to afford confidential treatment to sealed material in any Court
order or proceeding. It is further
ORDERED that Sabre’s request to file Exhibit E under seal is DENIED, without
prejudice to renewal by US Airways, should US Airways present any justification for sealing.
The confidential designation of a deposition transcript is not a self-evident basis for sealing. A
party must further explain why such material should be sealed. Furthermore, the Individual Rules
provide that “[t]he party with an interest in confidential treatment bears the burden of persuasion.
If this party is not the filing party, the party with an interest in confidential treatment shall
promptly email a letter to the Court explaining why it seeks to have certain documents” sealed
(emphasis added). Sabre has already disclaimed any interest in sealing Exhibit E, so US Airways
has the burden of justifying a sealing request, if any.
Accordingly, unless US Airways makes a further request to seal Exhibit E, by letter to the
Chambers inbox, Sabre shall file its Motion to Compel letter and accompanying exhibits on the
docket by January 30, 2020. US Airways’ letter, responding to the Motion to Compel letter, is
due February 6, 2020.
Dated: January 23, 2020 .
New York, New York
LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE