AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-01395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
AT&T Enterprises v. Atos: Judge Liman granted redaction requests, kept Dkt. 203 sealed, and closed Dkts. 201 and 215.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC and Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.; the order also protects confidential information identifying certain third-party customers and vendors.
What happened
In AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc., Atos asked to redact customer names and related confidential information from exhibits filed in connection with summary-judgment proceedings. The information included customer and vendor identities and revenue information.
The court granted the parties’ requests to redact the information identified in Docket Nos. 201 and 215. It directed filing of a version of Jonathan D. Pressment’s declaration and its exhibits showing only those redactions. Docket No. 203 could remain under seal.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Nos. 201 and 215. This order addressed sealing and redactions, not the underlying summary-judgment dispute.
The detailed version
- AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01395
- Lewis Liman
- June 16, 2025
Background
Atos asked the court to approve limited redactions in exhibits submitted by AT&T in opposition to Atos’s motion for summary judgment. The exhibits included emails and slide presentations identifying some of Atos’s third-party customers and vendors, and in some instances discussing their revenues. Atos proposed redacting customer names to keep that information confidential while leaving the financial information visible in anonymous form. The request concerned information designated confidential under a protective order.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ requests to redact the information identified in Docket Nos. 201 and 215. The court directed filing of a version of the declaration of Jonathan D. Pressment and its exhibits reflecting only those redactions. Docket No. 203 could remain under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Nos. 201 and 215.
Effect
This was an order concerning document redactions and sealing. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying summary-judgment dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.