Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC
- Garnett
- 1:22-cv-09286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In LoanCare v. Dimont, Judge Garnett granted in part LoanCare’s request to seal or redact confidential business information.
LoanCare, LLC and Dimont & Associates, LLC, particularly the handling of confidential business and financial materials filed in the case.
What happened
LoanCare, LLC asked the court in LoanCare, LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC to seal or redact documents containing confidential business information, including internal procedures, financial information, and information about a third-party business relationship.
The court allowed LoanCare to file under seal two specified exhibits and to file a redacted response to Dimont’s statement of facts using proposed redactions. The order said the confidentiality interests outweighed the public’s presumptive access to court documents.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the request in part and warned that future sealing or redaction requests should include the relevant docket number. The Clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 120.
The detailed version
- Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09286
- Garnett
- June 6, 2024
Background
LoanCare submitted a letter motion asking to seal or redact materials filed in connection with summary-judgment briefing. LoanCare said the materials contained confidential business information, internal policies and procedures, trade secrets, financial information, and proprietary information concerning invoices and its business relationships with clients and a third party. Dimont consented to the sealing request.
Court’s ruling
The court stated: “Request GRANTED in part.” LoanCare was permitted to file under seal Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A of the Declaration of Joseph DeFazio, identified as Docket No. 121-2. LoanCare was also permitted to file under seal Exhibit C of that declaration, identified as Docket No. 121-4. In addition, LoanCare was permitted to file a redacted response to Dimont’s statement of facts using the proposed redactions at Docket No. 126.
The court found that these documents contained confidential business and financial information and that those considerations outweighed the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court warned that future requests to seal or redact documents that do not provide the corresponding docket number are likely to be denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 120.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.