Lodging Solutions, LLC v. Miller
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lodging Solutions v. Miller, Judge Nathan granted sealing but required plaintiff to docket its supporting documents within one week.
The plaintiff, the individuals whose contact information appeared in the exhibit, and the public’s access to the court record were affected. The exhibit was sealed, while the plaintiff remained responsible for filing its other supporting papers.
What happened
In Lodging Solutions, LLC v. Miller, the plaintiff asked to seal an exhibit containing a former employee’s copied contact list and to have other temporary-restraining-order papers placed on the court docket.
The plaintiff said the list contained confidential client information, including addresses, telephone numbers, and notes about the contacts. It argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position and invade third parties’ privacy.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the sealing and redaction request, but did not direct the clerk to docket the other papers. Judge Nathan instead said the plaintiff was responsible for filing those documents within one week.
The detailed version
- Lodging Solutions, LLC v. Miller · No. 1:19-cv-10806
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
The plaintiff asked the court to seal Exhibit I from a hearing on its request for a temporary restraining order. The exhibit was a copy of Robert Miller’s Outlook contacts, which Miller copied from his laptop on October 18, the day he resigned from API. According to the request, the list came from API’s network server and included confidential client information such as home addresses, telephone numbers, and notes about how Miller met the contacts.
The plaintiff also asked the court to instruct the clerk’s office to upload documents that the plaintiff had submitted to chambers in support of its proposed order to show cause and temporary restraining order. The clerk’s office had told the plaintiff that it would upload those papers only if the judge’s chambers instructed it to do so.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard for sealing judicial documents. That standard requires the court to consider the public’s presumptive right of access, weigh the competing interests, and ensure that any sealing is narrowly tailored. The court found that protecting competitively sensitive business information and the privacy interests of third parties outweighed the public-access interest in this instance.
The court expressly did not decide whether the information qualified as trade secrets under federal or state law.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the plaintiff’s motion concerning the sealing and redaction requests. As to the request for the clerk to upload the plaintiff’s other papers, the court stated that the clerk’s office would not docket them and that the plaintiff was responsible for docketing them within one week of the order’s date. The order therefore addressed access to court filings and did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.