Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Navar v. Walsh Construction, Judge Schofield granted defendants’ redaction requests and ordered plaintiffs to file class-certification materials publicly redacted and unredacted under seal.
The plaintiffs must file the class- and collective-certification materials in both redacted public and unredacted sealed forms. The order protects confidential business information, including non-parties’ compensation information, from unauthorized disclosure.
What happened
In Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, the defendants asked the court to require redactions to the plaintiffs’ class- and collective-certification memorandum and selected exhibits.
The court granted the requests. It ordered the plaintiffs to file redacted versions on the public electronic docket and unredacted versions under seal by January 23, 2020.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield explained that public access to court documents is not absolute and that the redactions were necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information, including information about non-parties’ compensation.
The detailed version
- Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10476
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Defendants asked the court to require Plaintiffs to file a redacted version of their memorandum of law and selected exhibits supporting their motion for class and collective certification. The request was made by letter to the judge’s chambers on January 17, 2020.
Ruling
The court granted Defendants’ redaction requests. Plaintiffs were ordered to file the motion and supporting documents in redacted form on the public electronic docket and in unredacted form under seal by January 23, 2020, consistent with Defendants’ proposed redactions.
Reasoning and Effect
The court stated that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is not absolute and must be balanced against competing considerations. It found that redaction was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information, including information concerning the compensation of non-parties. The court also advised that it retained discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to information redacted in later orders and opinions. This order addressed filing and confidentiality procedures; it did not rule on the merits of the class- or collective-certification motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.