US Airways v. Sabre Holdings Corporation
US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest v. Sabre Holdings Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:11-cv-02725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
US Airways v. Sabre Holdings: Judge Schofield granted one sealing request and denied another without prejudice.
US Airways and Sabre Holdings Corporation and the other defendants, as to the public filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint and a deposition excerpt.
What happened
In US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest v. Sabre Holdings Corporation, the parties asked to keep certain court filings from public view. US Airways asked to seal parts of its Fourth Amended Complaint, and Sabre asked to seal an excerpt from a US Airways expert’s deposition.
The court granted US Airways’ request to seal the complaint portions and ordered US Airways to file redacted and sealed versions by January 30, 2020. The court denied Sabre’s request to seal the deposition excerpt, without prejudice to US Airways renewing that request with an explanation supporting secrecy.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield said that confidential labeling alone did not justify sealing and that the party seeking confidential treatment must explain why it is needed. Unless US Airways renewed its request, Sabre had to file its motion-to-compel letter and exhibits publicly by January 30, with US Airways’ response due February 6.
The detailed version
- US Airways v. Sabre Holdings Corporation · No. 1:11-cv-02725
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 23, 2020
Background
US Airways asked for permission to file portions of its Fourth Amended Complaint under seal. Sabre separately asked to file under seal Exhibit E to its letter proposing a motion to compel. Exhibit E was an excerpt from a deposition of US Airways’ expert, which US Airways had labeled confidential.
Sabre took no position on whether the deposition excerpt justified sealing, and US Airways did not initially provide a justification for sealing it. The court explained that the public generally has a right to access judicial documents, although that right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing considerations.
Rulings
The court granted US Airways’ request to seal portions of the Fourth Amended Complaint. It ordered US Airways to file, by January 30, 2020, a redacted version on the public docket and an unredacted version under seal. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business information. The court also stated that it retained discretion over whether sealed material would receive confidential treatment in a later order or proceeding.
The court denied, without prejudice to renewal by US Airways, Sabre’s request to file Exhibit E under seal. It held that a confidential designation on a deposition transcript was not, by itself, enough to justify sealing. The party seeking confidential treatment bears the burden of explaining why sealing is warranted. Because Sabre had disclaimed an interest in sealing Exhibit E, US Airways bore that burden if it wanted to renew the request.
Further filing deadlines
Unless US Airways made a further request to seal Exhibit E, the court ordered Sabre to file its motion-to-compel letter and accompanying exhibits publicly by January 30, 2020. US Airways’ response was due February 6, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.