United States v. Visa Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-07214
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United States v. Visa Inc., Judge Koeltl received Visa’s request to seal five exhibits, but the provided text shows no ruling.
Visa Inc. and three non-party companies whose contracts are the subject of the sealing request.
What happened
United States v. Visa Inc. concerns Visa’s request to file five exhibits under seal in connection with its planned motion to dismiss the government’s complaint. The provided document is a letter from Visa’s lawyers to Judge John G. Koeltl, and it states that the government did not oppose the request.
Visa said the exhibits were non-public contracts with three other companies. It argued that the contracts contained confidential pricing, technical-support, intellectual-property, and termination information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm to Visa and the other companies.
Judge Koeltl’s ruling is not included in the provided text. The document only shows Visa’s request and its supporting arguments, so no disposition of the sealing request can be stated.
The detailed version
- United States v. Visa Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07214
- John Koeltl
- Dec. 17, 2024
Document and request
The provided text is a December 16, 2024 letter from Visa Inc.’s counsel to Judge John G. Koeltl. Visa asks for permission to file under seal five exhibits to the declaration of Beth A. Wilkinson supporting Visa’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The letter also refers to related information in Visa’s motion to dismiss. It states that the government does not oppose the sealing request.
Visa’s stated reasons
Visa describes the exhibits as five non-public business contracts between Visa and three companies that are not parties to the case. Visa says it has ongoing contractual relationships with each company. According to the letter, the contracts contain confidential pricing information and provisions concerning technical support, use of intellectual property, and termination rights.
Visa argues that disclosure could harm Visa and the other companies competitively, including by putting Visa at a disadvantage in future negotiations. It also argues that the public would have little interest in seeing the exhibits because Visa’s motion to dismiss relies only on specific contract provisions that the government alleges are agreements not to compete. Visa says that most of the contract language is likely irrelevant to the court’s decision at the motion-to-dismiss stage but could be useful to competitors.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain a court order or ruling on Visa’s request. It therefore does not establish whether Judge Koeltl granted, denied, or otherwise acted on the request to file the five exhibits under seal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.