Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-03105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kaiser Aluminum Warrick v. US Magnesium, Judge Koeltl’s filing seeks to seal business exhibits, but the text provides no court ruling.
Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC, US Magnesium LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits identified for sealing.
What happened
Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC asked the court to allow certain exhibits to be filed under seal in connection with its motion to exclude evidence about its operations and force majeure declaration.
Kaiser said the exhibits contained commercially sensitive operational information and confidential contract terms, and that they had been designated confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order. The filing says similar sealing requests had previously been granted, but it does not show a ruling on this request.
The text is a letter from Kaiser’s counsel, not a court decision. Judge Koeltl is identified as the judge, but the provided text does not state whether he granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03105
- John Koeltl
- June 6, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a letter motion from Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC, through its counsel Andrew B. Kratenstein. Kaiser asks to file under seal exhibits attached to the Kratenstein Declaration in connection with its motion in limine, meaning a request concerning what evidence may be presented. The motion in limine concerns evidence related to Kaiser’s operations and its force majeure declaration.
Kaiser’s Position
Kaiser states that the exhibits were designated either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ protective order. It describes the materials as commercially sensitive business information and confidential terms of competitively sensitive contracts. Kaiser argues that public disclosure could commercially or competitively disadvantage it and cause severe harm. The letter also states that the court previously granted applications to seal similar information in connection with earlier summary-judgment filings.
Disposition
The text asks the court to permit Kaiser to file the listed exhibits under seal. It does not contain an order granting, denying, or otherwise ruling on that request. Accordingly, the provided text does not establish the court’s disposition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.