S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A.
Petersen Energia Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A.; Eton Park Cap. Mgmt. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:15-cv-02739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Petersen Energia Inversora v. Argentine Republic, counsel asked Judge Preska to allow limited redactions; the provided text shows no ruling.
The Argentine Republic requested redactions of non-parties’ individual contact information and a third party’s proprietary pricing information. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request. The provided text does not show any court ruling affecting access to the exhibits.
What happened
Petersen Energia Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and Eton Park Capital Management v. Argentine Republic are two related cases involving post-judgment discovery. The provided text is a September 2, 2025 letter from counsel for Argentina to Judge Loretta A. Preska.
Argentina asked the court to permit redactions in specified exhibits. The requested redactions concerned individual contact information belonging to non-parties and proprietary pricing information belonging to a third party. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The provided text does not contain an order or ruling. Judge Preska therefore cannot be said, based on this record, to have granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A. · No. 1:15-cv-02739
- Loretta Preska
- Oct. 7, 2025
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a letter from counsel for the Argentine Republic to Judge Loretta A. Preska. It asks the court to permit limited redactions in exhibits filed in connection with post-judgment discovery disputes. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state that the court granted or denied the request.
Requested Redactions
The Republic asked to redact two categories of information: individual contact information of non-parties and proprietary pricing information of a third party. The request concerned specified exhibits to a declaration and a joint status report in both related cases. The letter states that the plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
Arguments in the Letter
The Republic argued that the materials were filed in connection with post-judgment discovery disputes and were irrelevant to those disputes. It argued that the materials therefore were not entitled to a presumption of public access, or that any such presumption would be weak. The letter also cited authorities concerning the protection of non-parties’ contact information and third-party pricing information.
Disposition
The record provided contains no ruling by Judge Preska. Accordingly, the disposition of the redaction request cannot be determined from this text. The supplied metadata lists October 7, 2025 as the filing date, while the letter itself is dated September 2, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.