Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC
- Garnett
- 1:22-cv-09286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In LoanCare v. Dimont, Judge Garnett granted in part LoanCare’s sealing request, allowing redacted filings but rejecting redactions on Rule 56.1 Statement pages 27–28.
LoanCare, Dimont, and members of the public seeking access to the filed court documents were affected. LoanCare could file redacted versions, but it could not redact the specified statements on pages 27–28 without providing a further explanation.
What happened
In LoanCare, LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC, LoanCare asked to seal or redact its statement of undisputed facts and memorandum supporting partial summary judgment. LoanCare said the documents contained confidential business information, internal procedures, and information covered by third-party confidentiality commitments.
The court granted in part the request. LoanCare may file redacted versions of the memorandum and statement, but the court did not approve redactions on pages 27–28 of the statement. LoanCare had to remove those redactions or submit a further explanation by June 6, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 129.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett issued the order. The ruling concerned public access to court filings and protection of alleged confidential business information; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09286
- Garnett
- June 6, 2024
Background
LoanCare filed a letter motion asking the court to seal its Rule 56.1 statement of undisputed material facts and its memorandum supporting a motion for partial summary judgment. The documents had previously been filed as Docket Nos. 84-1 and 85. LoanCare argued that they quoted confidential business documents containing internal policies and procedures, trade secrets, and information about its relationships with clients. The letter stated that Dimont consented to sealing the documents.
Court’s ruling
The court granted in part LoanCare’s request. LoanCare was permitted to file redacted versions of its memorandum of law and Rule 56.1 statement, as proposed at Docket Nos. 131 and 133. The court did not grant the request to redact statements on pages 27–28 of the Rule 56.1 statement at Docket No. 133.
By June 6, 2024, LoanCare was required either to file the Rule 56.1 statement publicly with the page 27–28 redactions removed or to file a supplemental letter explaining why those particular statements should remain redacted. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 129.
Legal basis and effect
The court’s order addressed the balance between the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and interests in protecting confidential business information. It was a sealing and redaction ruling, not a decision on the merits of LoanCare’s underlying claims or its motion for partial summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.