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
- 1:16-cv-08569
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Petersen Energia v. Argentine Republic, the Republic asked Judge Preska to allow redactions of private and proprietary information.
The Argentine Republic, the plaintiffs in the two cases, non-parties whose individual contact information appears in the exhibits, and a third party whose proprietary pricing information appears there.
What happened
Petersen Energia Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A. and Eton Park Cap. Mgmt. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A. concern a request by the Argentine Republic to redact limited information from exhibits filed in post-judgment discovery disputes. The requested redactions cover individual contact information belonging to non-parties and proprietary pricing information belonging to a third party. The letter says the plaintiffs do not oppose the request.
The Republic argued that the materials were not entitled to a presumption of public access because they were irrelevant to the discovery disputes and did not help the court perform its judicial function. It also argued that any presumption of access would be weak because the discovery concerned locating assets to help satisfy a judgment, rather than deciding the parties’ underlying claims. The Republic cited authority recognizing privacy interests in non-parties’ contact information and protection for third-party pricing information.
The filing asks Judge Loretta A. Preska to permit continued redaction of the specified information. The provided text does not include a ruling by Judge Preska or state whether the request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A. · No. 1:16-cv-08569
- Loretta Preska
- Oct. 7, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a letter from counsel for the Argentine Republic to Judge Loretta A. Preska. It requests permission for limited redactions in exhibits filed in connection with post-judgment discovery disputes in the two listed cases. The letter is dated September 2, 2025, while the supplied case metadata lists October 7, 2025, as the filing date.
Requested Redactions
The Republic asks to redact two categories of information:
- Individual contact information of non-parties; and - Proprietary pricing information of a third party.
The request concerns specified exhibits to a declaration and a joint status report. The letter states that versions with the proposed redactions were submitted and that unredacted versions bearing the proposed redactions were submitted to the court under seal. It also states that the plaintiffs do not oppose the request. The Republic did not seek permission to redact one identified exhibit to the joint status report.
Arguments About Public Access
The Republic argues that the requested material is not a “judicial document” entitled to a presumption of public access. It relies on the argument that the information is irrelevant to the parties’ discovery disputes and therefore is not useful to the judicial process. In the alternative, the Republic argues that any presumption of public access would be weak because resolving a discovery motion does not require the court to analyze the merits of the claims or defenses.
The letter further emphasizes that the discovery is post-judgment discovery. According to the filing, its purpose is to identify the Republic’s assets or their whereabouts to help satisfy the judgment, rather than to determine the merits of the parties’ claims and defenses. The Republic cites decisions permitting redaction of non-parties’ personal email addresses and telephone numbers and protecting third-party pricing information.
Relief Requested and Status
The Republic asks Judge Loretta A. Preska to permit continued redaction of the identified non-party contact information and third-party proprietary pricing information. The provided text contains the Republic’s request and supporting arguments but does not contain a court order or state whether Judge Preska granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.