Tera Group, Inc. v. Citigroup, Inc.
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:17-cv-04302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tera Group v. Citigroup, Judge Sullivan required specific court approval before filing documents under seal.
The parties and anyone seeking to file documents under seal in this case were affected by the requirement for a document-specific court order and supporting materials. Rule 5.2 redactions remained available without another application.
What happened
Tera Group, Inc. v. Citigroup, Inc. concerned confidentiality protection for certain case materials. The opinion is an addendum to an order issued the same day.
The court said that no document could be filed under seal without another order addressing the specific documents. An application to seal had to include affidavits and a legal memorandum explaining why sealing was proper and discussing the controlling standards.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan also stated that the order did not change Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Redactions that Rule 5.2 expressly allows could be made without another application to the court.
The detailed version
- Tera Group, Inc. v. Citigroup, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-04302
- Richard Sullivan
- Nov. 12, 2019
Nature of the Order
This addendum was an integral part of the court’s order granting confidentiality protection to certain materials. Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation, issued the addendum.
Sealing Requirement
The court required a separate order addressing the particular documents before any document could be filed with the clerk under seal. An application to seal had to include one or more affidavits and a memorandum of law demonstrating that the applicable sealing standards were satisfied. The application also had to specifically address Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006), and any other controlling authority.
Rule 5.2
The court stated that nothing in the addendum altered or modified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Redactions expressly authorized by that rule could be made without another application to the court.
Disposition
The addendum preserved the requirement of specific court approval for documents filed under seal while allowing Rule 5.2 redactions without further application.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.