Comtech Telecommunications Corp. v. Eusebia, Ltd.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-06694
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Comtech Telecommunications v. Eusebia, Judge Abrams denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to seal two agreements and invited a renewed request or narrower redactions.
The plaintiffs must either justify sealing the two agreements in full or propose narrower redactions. The ruling also preserves the public’s access interest in records filed with the court, while allowing the plaintiffs to renew their request.
What happened
In Comtech Telecommunications Corp. v. Eusebia, Ltd., the plaintiffs asked to seal two license agreements submitted with their motion seeking a judgment because the defendant had not responded. The agreements were the Virtumedix Provider Partner Agreement and the Virtumedix API License Agreement.
The court denied the sealing request without prejudice. It explained that documents submitted for consideration on a motion are generally court records with a strong presumption of public access, and the plaintiffs had sought to seal the agreements in full without explaining why that was justified. The court noted that some confidential or business information might warrant protection.
Judge Ronnie Abrams gave the plaintiffs until December 16, 2019, either to explain why sealing the complete agreements was appropriate or to submit more narrowly tailored redactions and explain why those redactions were justified. The order did not decide the motion for a judgment based on the defendant’s failure to respond.
The detailed version
- Comtech Telecommunications Corp. v. Eusebia, Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-06694
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 9, 2019
Background
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. and Telecommunication Systems, Inc. filed a motion for default judgment against Eusebia, Ltd., formerly known as Videodoc Technologies, Ltd. In connection with that motion, the plaintiffs submitted exhibits and asked to file two of them under seal: the Virtumedix Provider Partner Agreement dated May 24, 2015, and the Virtumedix API License Agreement dated August 31, 2017. The opinion describes the case as a breach-of-contract action arising from those two license agreements.
Sealing standard
The court applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Documents submitted for the court’s consideration on a motion are judicial documents, meaning court records to which a strong presumption of public access applies under both federal common law and the First Amendment. The court also explained that a private confidentiality designation does not by itself overcome that presumption.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to seal the two agreements without prejudice. The plaintiffs had requested to seal the agreements in their entirety but had not identified why complete sealing was justified under the Lugosch standard. The court stated that sealing could be appropriate for some confidential or business information, but it did not find the plaintiffs’ request adequately supported as presented.
The court directed that, no later than December 16, 2019, the plaintiffs must either provide reasons supporting complete sealing under Lugosch or submit proposed, more narrowly tailored redactions and explain why those redactions were appropriate. Judge Ronnie Abrams’s order addressed the sealing request; the opinion does not state a ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.