In re Waste Management Securities Litigation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-04838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Waste Management Securities Litigation: Judge Schofield required support for sealing requests and kept Dkt. 117 sealed while redactions were addressed.
The lead plaintiffs, defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court filing were affected.
What happened
In In re Waste Management Securities Litigation, the lead plaintiffs asked to file a redacted letter seeking a conference before filing a motion. They based the proposed redactions on defendants’ confidentiality designations.
The court required defendants to file any motion to keep material sealed, an unredacted version identifying the proposed redactions, and support explaining the basis for each request. The court stated that confidentiality designations and the protective order do not by themselves overcome the public’s right to access court documents.
Judge Schofield ordered that the document filed at Docket Number 117 remain sealed for the time being. The excerpt does not state whether the lead plaintiffs’ request for permission to file a redacted letter was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- In re Waste Management Securities Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-04838
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 28, 2024
Background
The lead plaintiffs requested permission to file a redacted version of a letter seeking a conference before filing a motion. They said the proposed redactions were based on defendants’ confidentiality designations under a confidentiality agreement and stipulated protective order.
Sealing Requirements
The court directed defendants to file a motion for any material they seek to keep under seal. Defendants must also file an unredacted version showing the redacted portions and must explain the basis for each request to redact or maintain material under seal. The court cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006), concerning the public’s right of access to judicial documents.
The court stated that the parties’ confidentiality designations and the protective order do not decide whether the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing considerations. The document filed at Docket Number 117 was to remain under seal in the meantime.
Ruling
Judge Schofield required support for requests to redact or maintain material under seal and directed that Docket Number 117 remain sealed for the time being. The provided excerpt does not state whether the lead plaintiffs’ request for permission to file a redacted version of their letter was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.