Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Ferguson
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-03837
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Ferguson, Judge Broderick ordered redactions before publicly filing a previously sealed opinion.
The parties, the public’s access to the sealed opinion and order, and the self-represented defendant who was to receive a mailed copy.
What happened
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Ferguson concerns an opinion that had been filed under seal because the plaintiff’s supporting materials were described as confidential.
The court explained that the opinion is a judicial document and that the public generally has a right to see it. The parties were told to meet and submit a proposed redacted version for the public docket by March 5, 2025.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that the opinion would be unsealed in full if the parties did not respond. He also noted that decisions on three pending motions would come later and directed the clerk to mail the order to the self-represented defendant.
The detailed version
- Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Ferguson · No. 1:19-cv-03837
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
On July 2, 2021, the court issued an opinion and order resolving the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court filed that opinion and order under seal based on the claimed confidentiality of the plaintiff’s supporting materials.
Public access
Judge Broderick stated that the opinion and order is a judicial document to which the public has a presumptive right of access. The order therefore required the parties to meet and confer and submit, by March 5, 2025, a proposed redacted version that could be filed publicly. The court stated that, if the parties failed to respond, it would order the opinion and order unsealed in its entirety.
Disposition and other directions
The court did not decide the pending motions at Docs. 126, 129, and 133 in this order; it stated that a decision or decisions would issue later. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the self-represented defendant. The order addresses access to a sealed judicial document rather than the underlying claims, so this is a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.