United States v. The M/Y Amadea
United States v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing International Maritime Organization No. 1012531, Including All Fixtures, Fittings, Manuals, Stocks, Stores, Inventories, and Each Lifeboat, Tender, and Other Appu
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In United States v. The M/Y Amadea, Judge Ho granted in part and denied in part requests to seal discovery-related filings.
The claimants, the United States, non-party crew members and foreign witnesses whose identifying information was discussed, and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
In United States v. The M/Y Amadea, claimants and the United States asked the court to help obtain testimony from witnesses in foreign countries. The claimants also sought to keep certain witnesses’ names and identifying information sealed, while the United States sought temporary sealing for similar information.
The court found that the requested materials concerned discovery, so the public’s right to see them was qualified. Protecting non-parties’ personal information justified narrowly tailored redactions and sealing of witness names and identifying information. The court also noted that it was not deciding whether the information could remain confidential in filings related to motions that would decide the case.
Judge Ho granted in part the claimants’ motion to seal and granted in part the United States’ motion to temporarily seal. The court denied requests to seal several notices because they did not identify the individuals at issue, directed some documents to be unsealed, and directed other documents to remain sealed pending further order.
The detailed version
- United States v. The M/Y Amadea · No. 1:23-cv-09304
- Ho
- June 12, 2024
Background
Claimants filed motions seeking five letters rogatory—formal requests for judicial assistance from foreign governments to obtain evidence in a case. The United States filed a separate motion seeking a letter rogatory involving two foreign governments. Some requested evidence concerned three individuals identified by pseudonyms in the operative complaint.
The claimants moved to keep those individuals’ names under seal, and the United States did not oppose that request. The United States separately sought temporary sealing of papers identifying foreign witnesses, stating that the witnesses would be given an opportunity to seek additional sealing. Two witnesses also submitted a letter supporting continued sealing of their information.
Rulings
The court ordered that the claimants’ motion to seal was granted in part and that the United States’ motion to temporarily seal was granted in part. The court allowed the parties to file the names of certain crew members and witnesses under seal. It held that filings connected to discovery motions are subject to a qualified public right of access, which may be overcome by competing interests such as protecting non-parties’ personally identifying information. The court found the redactions in the parties’ supporting memoranda narrowly tailored to protect that information and allowed those memoranda to remain under seal.
Although the United States initially sought temporary sealing for fourteen or forty-five days, the court ordered that the witnesses’ names and identifying information could remain under seal pending further order. The court expressly made no ruling about confidential treatment of those names in filings connected to dispositive motions, which receive greater public access protection.
The court denied the parties’ requests to seal the notices at ECF Nos. 106, 107, 108, and 117 because the notices did not appear to identify the individuals. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 105, 115, and 120, unseal ECF Nos. 106, 107, 108, and 117, and maintain ECF Nos. 109 and 118 under seal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.