Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-01833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Judge Failla granted Ko’s request to redact witness-identifying information from a preliminary-injunction hearing transcript.
Jiin Ko, potential third-party witnesses whose identities or identifying titles appeared in the transcript, and members of the public seeking access to the transcript.
What happened
In Jiin Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc., et al., Jiin Ko asked the court to redact parts of a transcript from a hearing about her request for a preliminary injunction. The proposed redactions covered names and identifying job titles of people discussed in Ko’s sealed declaration.
Ko argued that the redactions were needed to protect potential witnesses from retaliation or intimidation. She also argued that the public could still understand the hearing despite the limited redactions. Swiftly did not oppose the request.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 63.
The detailed version
- Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01833
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Jiin Ko asked the court to redact highlighted portions of the transcript of a preliminary-injunction hearing. The proposed redactions concerned references to people discussed in Ko’s sealed declaration, including their names and identifying titles. Ko’s filing said that protecting these identities would help prevent retaliation against or intimidation of potential witnesses.
Ko argued that the public-access interest in the transcript was relatively limited because the requested redactions were narrow and targeted. She also argued that the public would still be able to read and understand the document. The filing stated that several of Ko’s former colleagues feared for their jobs if they spoke up. The defendants did not oppose the proposed redactions.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 63. The supplied text does not identify the specific portions that were ultimately redacted beyond describing the highlighted portions of the transcript.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.