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 file a confidential letter under seal.
SecurityScorecard, Inc. and Safe Securities, Inc., because the court permitted SecurityScorecard to file a letter containing information designated confidential by Safe Securities under seal.
What happened
In SecurityScorecard, Inc. v. Safe Securities, Inc., SecurityScorecard asked the court for permission to file a letter under seal. The letter concerned a request for international court assistance to obtain evidence.
SecurityScorecard said the letter contained limited information taken from a Safe Securities attorney’s letter marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the parties’ confidentiality order. The information concerned Safe Securities’ investigation into its possession and use of SecurityScorecard’s confidential and proprietary information. Safe Securities did not object.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application to file the letter under seal. The opinion also described the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and the need to balance that presumption against privacy interests.
The detailed version
- SecurityScorecard, Inc. v. Safe Securities, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04240
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 12, 2024
Request
SecurityScorecard, Inc. asked for permission to file under seal its pre-motion conference letter requesting international judicial assistance to obtain evidence. The request was made under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order dated October 16, 2024, and under Judge Ramos’s individual practice rules.
Basis for Sealing
SecurityScorecard sought to redact and seal limited information taken from a letter written by counsel for Safe Securities, Inc. The letter was marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the protective order. The information concerned Safe Securities’ investigation into its possession and use of SecurityScorecard’s confidential and proprietary information at issue in the case. SecurityScorecard said it was seeking to honor Safe Securities’ confidentiality designation even though it might disagree with that designation. Safe Securities did not object.
Legal Standard
The opinion explained that judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible when they are relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. A court must balance that presumption against competing interests, including privacy interests.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted SecurityScorecard’s request to file the pre-motion conference letter under seal. The available opinion text does not provide a separate explanation of the endorsement beyond the granted application and the parties’ submissions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.