United States v. Global Business Travel Group, Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:25-cv-00215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Global Business Travel Group, Judge Stein approved targeted redactions, directed filing of redacted documents, and ordered three documents unsealed.
The order directly concerns the United States, Global Business Travel Group, Inc., CWT Holdings, LLC, and public access to the identified court filings.
What happened
In United States v. Global Business Travel Group, the parties agreed on proposed redactions to filings connected to the United States’ motion to compel and submitted revised documents to the court.
The court found the proposed redactions justified by possible competitive harm, threats to commercial interests, and potential breach of attorney-client privilege. It also found that the proposal narrowly balanced public access against those concerns.
Judge Gary Stein directed the parties to file redacted versions of three filings and ordered the Clerk to unseal three other documents because the parties agreed they needed no redactions.
The detailed version
- United States v. Global Business Travel Group, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00215
- Jed Rakoff
- July 15, 2025
Background
Pursuant to an earlier court order, the United States and Global Business Travel Group, Inc. and CWT Holdings, LLC jointly reported that they had met and conferred and agreed on redactions to filings related to the United States’ June 2, 2025 letter motion to compel. Their submission included an appendix listing the proposed redactions, and they provided revised versions of the relevant filings to the court.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the proposed redactions under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions. It determined that the redactions were warranted based on the parties’ stated concerns about competitive harm, threats to commercial interests, and a potential breach of attorney-client privilege. The court agreed that the proposal used narrowly tailored redactions and targeted sealing of privileged exhibits while balancing the public’s presumptive right of access to court records against those concerns.
Ruling
The court directed the parties to file redacted versions of Docket Nos. 105, 108, and 109 in accordance with their proposal and their email submissions to the court. It also directed the Clerk of Court to unseal Docket Nos. 107, 113, and 114 because the parties agreed that those documents did not require redactions. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.