SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC
- Reif
- 1:22-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SS&C Technologies v. Arcesium, Judge Reif ordered a request to seal confidential material, limiting public access to an exhibit and reply redactions.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., Advent Software Inc., Arcesium LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the identified court filings.
What happened
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. and Advent Software Inc. asked to seal an exhibit and redact parts of a reply brief connected to their motion to vacate a judgment and file a proposed amended complaint in SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. and Advent Software Inc. v. Arcesium LLC.
SS&C said the material contained information labeled highly confidential and limited to outside lawyers and experts. It argued that disclosure could harm competitive standing. Arcesium joined the request to seal the exhibit but not the request to redact the reply brief.
Judge Timothy M. Reif marked the request “SO ORDERED” on April 4, 2025. The provided text does not separately state whether the request was granted in full or in part, but the order addresses sealing and redactions rather than the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02009
- Reif
- Apr. 4, 2025
Background
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. and Advent Software Inc. submitted a letter asking the court to allow an exhibit attached to SS&C’s reply memorandum to be filed under seal and to permit a redacted version of the reply. The reply supported SS&C’s motion to vacate the judgment and to allow a proposed Second Amended Complaint. Arcesium LLC joined the request concerning the exhibit but opposed the proposed redactions in the reply memorandum.
The sealing request
SS&C argued that the exhibit and the portions of the reply it wanted to redact contained or reflected information designated “highly confidential—outside counsel and experts’ eyes only.” The letter explained that courts weigh the public’s presumptive right to inspect documents used in judicial proceedings against privacy and competitive-harm concerns. SS&C asserted that disclosure could harm a litigant’s competitive standing and cited similar sealing decisions, including an earlier order in this case.
Ruling
The document ends with Judge Timothy M. Reif’s “SO ORDERED” notation, dated April 4, 2025. Judge Reif was sitting by designation from the United States Court of International Trade. The provided opinion text does not use a separate “granted” or “denied” formulation and does not specify whether the request to seal and the requested reply redactions were approved in full or in part. The ruling concerns access to court filings and does not decide SS&C’s motion to vacate the judgment or its request to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.