Jane Street Group, LLC v. Millennium Management LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-02783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jane Street v. Millennium, Judge Engelmayer granted sealing-related requests and directed the Clerk to close motions at Dockets 229 and 236.
Jane Street Group, LLC, Millennium Management LLC, Douglas Schadewald, Daniel Spottiswood, and members of the public seeking access to the affected court materials.
What happened
Jane Street Group, LLC asked the court to approve limited redactions and seal unredacted versions of materials connected to its motion for a protective order. It said the information included trade secrets, proprietary trading strategies, commercially sensitive information, and private details about employees and public-relations personnel. The defendants did not oppose the proposed redactions.
The requested redactions covered portions of deposition-related materials, document requests, and an email chain. Jane Street said the redactions would protect confidential business information and third-party privacy while leaving the public enough information to understand the dispute.
The court granted the request. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions pending at Dockets 229 and 236.
The detailed version
- Jane Street Group, LLC v. Millennium Management LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02783
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
Jane Street Group, LLC asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to approve proposed redactions and to seal the unredacted versions of materials related to Jane Street’s motion for a protective order. The request concerned filings and exhibits at Dockets 233, 233-1, 233-2, 233-3, and 233-4. The letter stated that Millennium Management LLC, Douglas Schadewald, and Daniel Spottiswood did not oppose the proposed redactions.
Requested redactions
Jane Street said the redacted information included proprietary and commercially sensitive information, trade-secret trading strategies, proprietary research, and information about people who contributed to those strategies. It also sought to redact names and email lists of Jane Street employees, information about a public-relations firm and its personnel, and portions of an email chain. Jane Street argued that the information could harm its competitive position or implicate third-party privacy interests, while its limited redactions would leave the public with enough information to understand the dispute.
Ruling
The court marked the request “GRANTED.” The order therefore approved the requested sealing-related relief. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions pending at Dockets 229 and 236. The short order did not provide additional explanation about the scope of each individual redaction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.