SecurityScorecard, Inc. v. Safe Securities, Inc.

Background

SecurityScorecard, Inc. asked for permission to file under seal its motion requesting a letter of request for international judicial assistance to obtain evidence. The request relied on the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order dated October 16, 2024.

SecurityScorecard explained that the motion contained limited information taken from letters written by counsel for Safe Securities, Inc. Those letters were 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. SecurityScorecard said it did not necessarily agree with Safe Securities’ confidentiality designation but sought sealing to comply with the protective order. It also stated that the court had previously agreed to seal some of the information. Safe Securities did not object.

Legal standard

The application discussed the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It stated that the court must balance that presumption against competing interests, including privacy interests, and must consider the particular reasons for requesting a seal.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application to file the motion under seal. The opinion does not specify any additional conditions or limitations on the sealing order.

Effect

The ruling concerns access to the filing and does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or the merits of SecurityScorecard’s motion for international judicial assistance.