Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel v. The TriZetto Group

Nature of the order

This was an order addressing numerous motions to seal or redact documents filed in connection with the parties’ motions in limine, Seventh Amendment briefing, and June 2025 jury-trial materials. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute. The court treated the documents as judicial documents, meaning records connected to the court’s work and subject to a presumption of public access.

Legal standard

The court used a three-step public-access analysis. First, it asked whether each document was a judicial document. Second, it assessed the strength of the public-access presumption based on the document’s role in the court’s exercise of its authority. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests. The party seeking secrecy had to show that a higher value—such as attorney-client privilege, the privacy of innocent third parties, or protection of sensitive commercial information—justified sealing. Any sealing had to be supported by specific findings and narrowly tailored to protect the asserted interest.

The court emphasized that confidential-designation labels alone did not overcome the public’s right of access. Requests to seal entire expert-report or deposition excerpts were often considered too broad because they did not identify specific information requiring protection.

Rulings on the motions

The court issued individualized rulings on the parties’ many motions. In general, requests for narrowly tailored redactions were granted when they protected against competitive, personal, or privacy-related harm. Requests to seal entire exhibits were generally denied without prejudice to renewal unless the exhibits consisted almost entirely of information properly protected from disclosure.

For Syntel’s motions concerning its own motion-in-limine papers and exhibits, several motions were denied as superseded by TriZetto’s later motions, which were granted. Other Syntel motions were granted in part and denied in part: the court granted sealing or redaction for specified memoranda or exhibits and denied requests concerning other exhibits. Some Syntel motions were denied outright, including requests based only on confidential designations. TriZetto’s later motions were likewise granted, denied, granted in part and denied in part, or denied without prejudice to renewal depending on the particular document or exhibit.

The court also granted some requests to seal entire exhibits containing confidential technical or business information, including specified exhibits connected with the parties’ motions in limine, Seventh Amendment briefing, and trial submissions. It denied or denied without prejudice other requests covering broad excerpts from expert reports, deposition testimony, or other materials where the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored. In several instances, the court allowed a renewed motion by November 21, 2025, if the party identified the specific information to be sealed or redacted and supplied a supporting basis.

For the Seventh Amendment materials, Syntel’s motion was denied as superseded by TriZetto’s motion, which was granted as to specified exhibits. TriZetto’s motion concerning its sur-reply was denied as superseded by Syntel’s motion, which was granted as to specified exhibits containing confidential third-party information.

For trial-related filings, Syntel’s motion was granted in part and denied in part; TriZetto’s motions concerning lost profits, proposed jury instructions, pretrial materials, and objections were also granted, denied, granted in part and denied in part, or denied without prejudice to renewal as specified in the order. Syntel’s motion concerning additional voir dire questions and related exhibits was granted to protect third-party privacy interests.

Additional directives and effect

The court directed Syntel to refile certain documents on the public docket by November 21, 2025, using redactions proposed in TriZetto’s granted motions. The Clerk was directed to close the listed motions, lift the seal on specified docket entries, and leave other documents under seal. The order stated that all documents not specifically identified for unsealing would remain sealed at that time.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s rulings concerned public access to litigation records and the proper scope of sealing; they did not resolve the underlying claims or defenses.