Lodging Solutions, LLC v. Miller

Background

Lodging Solutions, LLC filed a letter-motion seeking permission to file redacted versions of some exhibits and to file other exhibits under seal. The exhibits had been used at a December 17, 2019, preliminary-injunction hearing.

The requested redactions concerned Exhibits 67, 69, 70, and 72, which contained text communications involving Defendant Miller and certain third parties. The proposed redactions removed API client names, names of API employees not relevant to the action, phone numbers, sensitive business information, and identifying information about third parties.

Lodging Solutions also sought to file Exhibits 34, 48, and Defendant’s Exhibit C under seal. It sought redactions to Exhibits 22, 65, 66, and 75. The opinion describes the three documents proposed for sealing as internal API documents containing sensitive information about API’s business strategy, API client identities, and data specific to individual clients. The parties agreed on the proposed redactions and sealing requests. The opinion also states that Exhibit 92 had previously been redacted and approved by the court.

Legal standard

The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard for restricting public access to court records. Under that standard, the court considers whether a document is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and factors opposing public disclosure. Any restriction must be essential to protect a higher value and narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

The opinion identifies privacy interests, sensitive and proprietary information, competitive harm, and judicial efficiency as relevant countervailing considerations. It also states that text messages are traditionally private and that the privacy interests of uninvolved third parties can weigh heavily against disclosure.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion. It found that the requested redactions and sealing were narrowly tailored to protect competitive business information and third-party privacy. The court concluded that protection against competitive disadvantage and harm to privacy interests outweighed the value of public access to the information.

The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether the information covered by the requests constituted trade secrets under federal or state law. The opinion does not state any separate ruling on the underlying claims in the case.