Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled May 15, 2025

Caterpillar Inc. v. Liberty Global Logistics LLC

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:25-cv-00028
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Caterpillar Inc. v. Liberty Global Logistics LLC, Judge Castel’s text presents a request to seal exhibits and approve redactions; it contains no ruling.

Who this affects

Caterpillar Inc., Caterpillar Logistics LLC, Liberty Global Logistics LLC, and other parties identified in the letter could be affected by whether the exhibits are publicly filed, sealed, or redacted. The proposed redactions also concern non-party signatories.

What happened

Caterpillar Inc. v. Liberty Global Logistics LLC concerns a defense request to file three exhibits under seal in connection with a motion to dismiss Caterpillar’s amended complaint. The exhibits are a master service agreement, a statement of work, and an amendment involving a vessel voyage charter.

The defendants’ letter says the documents contain confidential business information. It asks the court to seal all three exhibits and approve limited redactions in the amendment for rates, costs, fees, financial terms, and the identities of non-party signatories. Caterpillar did not oppose the proposed redactions but maintained that all three exhibits should be sealed.

The text identifies Judge P. Kevin Castel, but it does not include a court ruling or state whether the requests were granted or denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Caterpillar Inc. v. Liberty Global Logistics LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00028
Judge
P. Castel
Date
May 15, 2025

Nature of the Document

The provided text is a defense letter motion, dated May 14, 2025, requesting action concerning confidential exhibits. It does not contain an order or other ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel.

Background

The letter states that Caterpillar Logistics LLC and Liberty Global Logistics LLC entered into a master service agreement effective February 5, 2019, concerning ocean transportation services. The agreement contemplated separate statements of work. The letter also describes a statement of work and a later amendment concerning a full-vessel voyage charter for Caterpillar cargo.

The letter says the master service agreement includes confidentiality and disclosure provisions covering the agreement, the statement of work, and the amendment. Although Caterpillar’s amended complaint and the defendants’ motion-to-dismiss papers quote or reference portions of those documents, the parties did not consent to filing the documents publicly.

Requests Presented

The defendants requested permission to file Exhibits 2, 3, and 5 to the declaration of Conlan Buchanan under seal. The exhibits were identified as the master service agreement, the statement of work, and the Twenty Ninth Amendment to Statement of Work #1.

The defendants separately requested approval for narrowly tailored redactions to the amendment. The proposed redactions concerned charter rates, administrative fees, credits, bunker-adjustment information, permissible voyage days, other rates and charges, and the identities of non-party signatories. The letter states that Caterpillar did not oppose those proposed redactions.

Legal Standard Described

The letter describes a common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It also states that access is not absolute and that the party seeking to restrict access must show compelling circumstances. The letter says the court should consider the documents’ importance to the case, the potential harm from disclosure, and the public interest.

Disposition

The provided text does not state that Judge P. Kevin Castel granted, denied, or otherwise resolved either request. It therefore does not establish the disposition of the sealing request or the request to approve redactions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.