Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-01833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Judge Failla granted Ko’s application to seal an unredacted declaration while allowing a redacted version to remain public.
Jiin Ko, Swiftly Systems, Inc., potential third-party witnesses, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed filing.
What happened
In Jiin Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc., Jiin Ko asked to file under seal an unredacted supplemental declaration supporting her request for a preliminary injunction. She proposed redacting the names, job titles, and other identifying information of current Swiftly employees who might support her claims.
Ko’s lawyers said the redactions were needed because potential witnesses feared retaliation or intimidation if their identities were disclosed. They argued that the public could still understand the declaration if the limited information were redacted, while sealing the information would protect the employees’ privacy.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application to seal. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 22 and keep docket entry 24 under seal, available only to the court and the parties.
The detailed version
- Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01833
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
Jiin Ko moved to file under seal an unredacted copy of her supplemental declaration supporting a preliminary-injunction request. A preliminary injunction is a court order sought before a case is finished that can require a party to take or stop taking specified actions. Ko proposed narrowly tailored redactions covering the names, titles, and other personally identifying information of current Swiftly employees with whom she had discussed complaints against Swiftly and their possible willingness to testify.
Ko’s counsel stated that the redactions were intended to prevent retaliation or intimidation against potential witnesses. The filing said several of Ko’s former colleagues had told her they feared for their jobs if they spoke up. Ko also intended to file a redacted, publicly available version of the declaration.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that when a party seeks to restrict public access to a court filing, it must weigh the public’s presumptive right of access against legitimate interests favoring nondisclosure. The court found the presumption of access relatively modest because the request involved only names and limited, targeted information, and the public could still read and understand the documents with those redactions.
The court also found that the privacy interests of potential third-party witnesses weighed heavily against disclosure. The need to protect those witnesses outweighed the presumption of public access to the redacted portions of Ko’s declaration.
Ruling
The court granted the application to seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 22 and to maintain docket entry 24 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.