SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P.
- Reif
- 1:23-cv-09158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In SS&C Technologies v. D.E. Shaw, Judge Reif ordered one passage redacted from a dismissal motion and the unredacted version filed under seal.
D.E. Shaw’s motion to dismiss, Arcesium’s confidential discovery material, SS&C and Advent’s court filings, and public access to the redacted passage.
What happened
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P. concerns D.E. Shaw’s request to keep a small portion of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint from the public docket.
The disputed passage referred to discovery material that Arcesium LLC had marked highly confidential in a separate related case. SS&C had also used that material in its amended complaint, and the court had previously allowed the same information to be redacted there.
The court ordered that the public version of D.E. Shaw’s motion could contain the redaction and that an unredacted version could be filed under seal. Judge Timothy M. Reif issued the order on March 26, 2025.
The detailed version
- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P. · No. 1:23-cv-09158
- Reif
- Mar. 26, 2025
Background
D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P. asked the court for permission to file a public version of its motion to dismiss with a redaction and to file the unredacted motion under seal. The motion discussed material from SS&C’s amended complaint that the court had previously allowed to be redacted.
The material came from discovery in a separate related case involving Arcesium LLC. Arcesium had designated the material “Highly Confidential — Outside Counsel and Experts’ Eyes Only” under a protective order. That protective order required protected material included in court filings to be redacted from public filings and included in unredacted versions filed under seal. Arcesium supported D.E. Shaw’s request.
Court’s action
The court marked the request “SO ORDERED.” The order therefore authorized the requested redaction in the public version of D.E. Shaw’s motion and the filing of an unredacted version under seal. The opinion states that the motion contained only one redaction, covering no more than two lines.
The ruling concerned access to a court filing, not the merits of D.E. Shaw’s motion to dismiss or the underlying dispute. Judge Timothy M. Reif was sitting by designation from the United States Court of International Trade in the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.