Fitzpatrick v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10592
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fitzpatrick v. Roadget Business, Judge Furman deferred permanent sealing, giving defendants until January 31, 2025, to renew their request before materials are unsealed.
The defendants, the plaintiff, and members of the public seeking access to the redacted filing and deposition-related materials.
What happened
Fitzpatrick v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. concerns defendants’ request to permanently keep redactions in a filing about extending discovery and postponing a settlement conference. The filing referred to testimony from a defendants’ corporate deposition that was marked for attorneys’ eyes only under the parties’ protective order.
The defendants argued that the redactions should remain because the testimony was still covered by the protective order and because the plaintiff’s description of the testimony allegedly accused them of discovery misconduct. They said public disclosure could harm their business prospects and position in other lawsuits. They agreed that the proposed redactions were limited to the protected testimony.
Judge Jesse Furman was not persuaded by the defendants’ argument that disagreement over the plaintiff’s descriptions justified permanent secrecy, stating that public access could allow others to evaluate who characterized the materials correctly. Judge Furman gave the defendants time to review the transcripts and renew their request by January 31, 2025; without a new motion, the materials will be unsealed. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF 81.
The detailed version
- Fitzpatrick v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-10592
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
The defendants responded to the plaintiff’s request to file a motion in redacted form. They asked the court to permanently apply the plaintiff’s proposed redactions to a filing seeking an extension of the discovery deadline and an adjournment of the settlement conference.
The parties had a stipulated protective order. The defendants said it designated relevant testimony from a corporate deposition as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” meaning access was limited under the protective order. They also stated that deposition transcripts were treated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only for 30 days after receipt and that the relevant transcripts had not yet been received 30 days earlier.
Parties’ Positions
The defendants argued that the testimony was properly protected under the protective order. They also argued that the plaintiff’s filing mischaracterized the testimony and falsely suggested that the defendants had admitted to discovery misconduct. According to the defendants, public disclosure could harm their business relationships and competitive position in other lawsuits. They agreed with the plaintiff that the proposed redactions were narrowly limited to testimony designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it was unpersuaded by the defendants’ second reason for permanent sealing. The court explained that the defendants’ disagreement with the plaintiff’s characterizations warranted more public access, not less, because others could then assess who correctly characterized the materials.
The court nevertheless gave the defendants time to review the transcripts and renew their request. The defendants were directed to do so by January 31, 2025. The court stated that, absent a new motion by that date, the materials would be unsealed. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF 81. The order does not expressly state that the request for permanent sealing was granted or denied; it sets a deadline for a renewed request and provides for unsealing if none is filed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.