SecurityScorecard, Inc. v. Safe Securities, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-04240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SecurityScorecard v. Safe Securities, Judge Ramos granted SSC’s request to seal specified filings and exhibits containing proprietary and third-party information.
SecurityScorecard may file the specified portions of its brief and declaration and Exhibits A through C under seal. The public will not have ordinary access to those sealed materials, and the order protects identified proprietary information and third-party identifying information from public disclosure.
What happened
In SecurityScorecard, Inc. v. Safe Securities, Inc., SecurityScorecard asked to file parts of its reply brief, a declaration, and three exhibits under seal while pursuing a renewed request for a preliminary injunction.
The request covered information about the annual cost of developing SecurityScorecard’s cybersecurity work product, proprietary digital footprints and questionnaire templates, and information identifying a third party and related domain names. SecurityScorecard said public disclosure could cause competitive harm or invade the third party’s privacy.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request to file the described documents under seal. The order addressed public access to these documents and did not decide the request for a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- SecurityScorecard, Inc. v. Safe Securities, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04240
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 12, 2024
Background
SecurityScorecard, Inc. asked the court for permission to file certain materials under seal in connection with its reply supporting a renewed request for a preliminary injunction. The requested materials were portions of the reply brief, portions of Steve Cobb’s August 9, 2024 declaration, and Exhibits A through C to that declaration.
Reasons for Sealing
The request relied on the general presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public. The court’s order adopted the request’s explanation that portions of the brief and declaration discussed the annual amount invested in developing SecurityScorecard’s cybersecurity work product, called “digital footprints.” SecurityScorecard said that information was sensitive business information and that disclosure could place it at a competitive disadvantage.
SecurityScorecard also described Exhibits A and B as examples of its digital footprints. Although the footprints used some publicly available information, SecurityScorecard said they also reflected its proprietary attribution process. Exhibit C was described as a set of customer questionnaire templates based on SecurityScorecard’s industry knowledge and not standard industry forms. The request further stated that portions of the declaration and Exhibits A and B identified a specific third party and that party’s associated domain names.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted SecurityScorecard’s request to file the described materials under seal. The order treated the proprietary business information as sufficiently sensitive to overcome the public-access presumption and gave weight to the privacy interests of the identified third party. The order concerned filing restrictions and did not resolve the underlying renewed preliminary-injunction request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.