United States v. Global Business Travel Group, Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:25-cv-00215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In United States v. Global Business Travel Group, Judge Marrero directed the Government to respond to CWT’s request to seal an exhibit or strike it.
CWT Holdings, LLC, the Government, Global Business Travel Group, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the court record.
What happened
United States of America v. Global Business Travel Group, Inc. involved CWT Holdings, LLC’s request concerning Exhibit A to a declaration supporting the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. CWT said the exhibit contained confidential business and financial information submitted to the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority.
CWT asked the court to keep Exhibit A under seal, arguing that disclosure could cause competitive and irreparable harm. Alternatively, CWT asked the court to strike the exhibit if sealing were denied. CWT also acknowledged the public’s right to access court records but argued that the exhibit had little connection to the court’s decision-making at this early stage.
Judge Victor Marrero did not decide the sealing or striking request in this order. Instead, the court directed the Government to respond within five days, while considering the court’s earlier order about possible conditions if the sealing request were denied.
The detailed version
- United States v. Global Business Travel Group, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00215
- Jed Rakoff
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
CWT Holdings, LLC asked the court to seal Exhibit A to the declaration of Michael F. Murray, which supported the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. CWT said Exhibit A was a confidential submission it made to the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority in connection with the authority’s review of CWT’s anticipated acquisition by Global Business Travel Group, Inc.
CWT stated that the exhibit contained closely guarded, forward-looking business and financial information. It argued that disclosure could give competitors information they could use to CWT’s disadvantage and could interfere with the confidential treatment the submission received during the Competition and Markets Authority’s review.
CWT’s Request
CWT asked the court to keep Exhibit A under seal. In the alternative, if the court denied sealing, CWT asked the court to strike Exhibit A from the record so that it would not be considered in connection with the motion for reconsideration.
CWT applied the three-step standard used in the Second Circuit for sealing judicial documents: whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the presumption of public access, and whether competing interests outweigh that presumption. CWT acknowledged that Exhibit A was a judicial document but argued that the presumption of access was weak because the exhibit concerned a preliminary reconsideration request rather than the merits of the case. CWT also argued that preventing competitive harm outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure.
Court’s Action
The court did not rule on whether Exhibit A should be sealed or stricken. Judge Marrero directed the Government to respond to CWT’s request to seal Exhibit A, or to strike the submission if sealing were denied. The court directed the Government to respond within five days and instructed it to consider the court’s January 28, 2025 order concerning possible conditions that might be imposed if the sealing request were denied.
The order therefore required a response and left the sealing and alternative striking requests unresolved.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.