Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC.
- Subramanian
- 1:20-cv-01107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wenger S.A. v. Olivet International, Judge Subramanian approved redactions to Olivet’s reply based on confidential business information.
Olivet International, Inc., Wenger S.A., and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Wenger S.A. v. Olivet International, Inc. concerns Olivet’s request to redact parts of its reply papers in support of its motion for summary judgment and request to amend its answer.
Olivet said the papers contained confidential business information and referred to documents the court had previously allowed to be filed under seal or in redacted form. It argued that public disclosure could harm the parties by giving competitors access to sensitive information.
The court approved the requested redactions. Judge Arun Subramanian’s order addressed confidentiality and public access to court papers; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or the summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC. · No. 1:20-cv-01107
- Subramanian
- June 1, 2024
Background
Defendant Olivet International, Inc. asked the court for permission to redact portions of its reply memorandum supporting its motion for summary judgment and its motion for leave to amend its answer. Olivet also sought to redact its reply supporting its statement of undisputed facts and its response to Wenger S.A.’s additional facts.
Olivet represented that these papers contained confidential business information and referred to documents that the court had previously permitted to be filed in redacted form or under seal. Olivet argued that the information was not otherwise publicly available and that disclosure could prejudice the parties by allowing competitors to see sensitive business information.
Court’s analysis
The court recognized the general presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public. It also noted that sealing or redaction may be allowed when necessary to protect an important interest and narrowly limited to that purpose. The court identified confidential business information as an interest that can justify restricting public access.
Ruling
The court approved Olivet’s request to file its reply papers with redactions. The order concerned access to confidential information in court filings and did not rule on the merits of the parties’ dispute or Olivet’s summary-judgment motion. Judge Arun Subramanian entered the order on May 31, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.