Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2024

Jane Street Group, LLC v. Millennium Management LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-02783
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jane Street v. Millennium, Judge Engelmayer granted Jane Street’s request to redact and seal portions of an extension motion and supporting exhibits.

Who this affects

Jane Street Group, LLC and the defendants, because the ruling concerns redacting and sealing materials connected to Jane Street’s motion for an extension and its supporting exhibits.

What happened

Jane Street Group, LLC asked the Southern District of New York for permission to redact and seal parts of its motion seeking more time and the exhibits supporting that motion. Jane Street said the materials contained commercially sensitive, proprietary, trade-secret, and intellectual-property information.

Jane Street said it would file a public version with redactions, a sealed version identifying the proposed redactions, and an explanation for them. It also said it would discuss redactions with the defendants and submit proposed redactions to the sealed documents.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the sealing motion. The order did not specify which particular materials would be sealed or redacted and did not state that the court adopted any additional findings.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jane Street Group, LLC v. Millennium Management LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02783
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Aug. 5, 2024

Background

Jane Street Group, LLC filed a letter asking the court for permission to redact and seal portions of its motion for an extension and the motion’s supporting exhibits. The letter said the materials contained competitively sensitive information about Jane Street’s business operations, as well as confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, and intellectual-property information.

Jane Street stated that it treated the information as confidential and that secrecy was a significant competitive asset. It also stated that disclosure could place it at a competitive disadvantage. The letter cited earlier Southern District of New York decisions and prior orders in the case involving similar information.

Requested Procedure

Jane Street said it would file a public redacted version of its extension motion within three business days. It also said it would file a sealed version identifying the proposed redactions and an explanation for each one. Jane Street further stated that it would meet and confer with the defendants about sealing or redacting the motion and exhibits, then submit proposed redactions to the sealed documents.

The letter also said Jane Street believed the defendants might seek to seal some or all of the extension motion and exhibits. The opinion does not describe any separate request by the defendants or identify the specific information ultimately approved for sealing.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered the order, “GRANTED,” and stated, “SO ORDERED.” The court therefore granted Jane Street’s sealing motion. The order did not specify the individual redactions or sealed materials, add a prejudice limitation, or state whether any material would remain sealed permanently.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.