ExpertConnect, L.L.C. v. Fowler
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-04828
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In ExpertConnect v. Fowler, Judge Schofield accepted proposed redactions and sealing requests for submissions about extending a preliminary injunction.
ExpertConnect, LLC and the defendants, who were required to file the specified submissions under seal and comply with the court’s redaction instructions.
What happened
In ExpertConnect, LLC v. Fowler, the parties sent the court submissions about ExpertConnect’s request to extend a preliminary injunction. They proposed redacting confidential information from some filings and placing other filings under seal.
The court accepted the proposed redactions and sealing requests, finding them narrowly tailored and necessary to protect sensitive business information and prevent competitive harm. The court ordered the parties to file the sealed and unredacted submissions by December 24, 2019.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also reminded the parties that unredacted materials already filed in redacted form must be submitted under seal, and that the defendant must highlight proposed redactions in emails containing unredacted material.
The detailed version
- ExpertConnect, L.L.C. v. Fowler · No. 1:18-cv-04828
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
On December 18 and 19, 2019, the parties emailed the court submissions concerning ExpertConnect’s application to extend a preliminary injunction. The parties proposed publicly filing some submissions with redactions and filing other submissions under seal.
Court’s reasoning
The court recognized a common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents, but explained that this right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing interests. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business information and to avoid competitive disadvantage.
Order
The court accepted the parties’ proposed redactions and requests to file certain information under seal. It ordered the parties to file their unredacted and sealed submissions concerning the application to extend the preliminary injunction with the Clerk of Court no later than December 24, 2019. The court also stated that materials already filed in redacted form must be filed in unredacted form with the Clerk under seal. The defendant was reminded to highlight all proposed redactions in emails containing unredacted material.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.