Great Lakes Insurance SE v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and…
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-10656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Great Lakes Insurance v. American Steamship, Judge Abrams ordered defendants to justify sealing exhibits or propose narrower redactions.
The order affected American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc. and Shipowners Claims Bureau, Inc., which sought to seal exhibits, and it addressed the public’s access to those court filings.
What happened
In Great Lakes Insurance SE v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association Inc., two defendants asked to file exhibits under seal with their planned motion to dismiss. They said the exhibits were confidential documents covered by a protective order in a separate case.
The court said that a protective order alone does not justify hiding documents filed in federal court. The defendants had not explained why sealing would overcome the strong presumption that court records should be publicly accessible.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the defendants to provide that explanation by December 17, 2019. Alternatively, they could submit more limited redactions by that date, but they still had to explain why those redactions were justified.
The detailed version
- Great Lakes Insurance SE v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and… · No. 1:19-cv-10656
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
Defendants American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc. and Shipowners Claims Bureau, Inc. asked to file certain exhibits under seal in connection with their forthcoming motion to dismiss. They argued that the exhibits were confidential documents covered by a stipulated protective order filed in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that documents filed with a court may be subject to a strong presumption of public access. Under the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, a party seeking to seal judicial documents must explain why sealing is justified. A confidentiality designation or protective order from discovery does not, by itself, overcome that presumption. The defendants had not identified why sealing the exhibits was justified under that standard.
Order
The court did not rule that the exhibits could not be sealed. Instead, it ordered the defendants to provide, no later than December 17, 2019, their reasons why sealing was justified under Lugosch. The defendants could instead submit proposed redactions more narrowly tailored to the interests they sought to protect, but they also had to explain why those redactions were appropriate under the same standard. The order was entered by United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.