Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-11246
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital, Judge Schofield accepted some proposed redactions, found others too broad, and ordered revised proposals.
Magnetar Capital LLC, the parties to the petition, and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.
What happened
Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC concerned Magnetar Capital’s proposed redactions to a petition seeking to vacate an arbitration decision.
The court accepted redactions covering specific, nonpublic numerical information about the fund’s makeup, size, and performance; specific, nonpublic numerical information about performance fees; and the identities of current and former Magnetar employees. The court said the remaining proposed redactions were too broad.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Magnetar Capital to email revised proposed redactions by December 23, 2019. The court also allowed Magnetar to propose additional redactions if it itemized each one and provided factual and legal reasons.
The detailed version
- Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11246
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Magnetar Capital LLC sent the court proposed redactions to the Petition to Vacate Arbitration. The order addressed public access to court documents and whether the proposed redactions were justified.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a strong presumption of public access, although that right is not absolute. A court may limit access when specific findings show that doing so is necessary to protect an important interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored.
The court accepted redactions for three categories of information:
- Specific, numerical, nonpublic information about the fund’s makeup, size, and performance, excluding general allegations about legacy or “underwater” funds;
- Specific, numerical, nonpublic information about Magnetar’s performance fees; and
- The identities of Magnetar’s current and former employees.
The court stated that these redactions were necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information. It found that Magnetar’s remaining proposed redactions were overly broad.
Order and effect
The court ordered Magnetar Capital to email revised proposed redactions by December 23, 2019. Magnetar could also submit additional proposed redactions, but it had to list each one and provide factual and legal justifications. This order concerned access to information in the court filing; it did not decide the merits of the petition to vacate arbitration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.