Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-11246
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC, Judge Schofield granted proposed redactions to documents supporting the petition to vacate an arbitration award.
Damian Dalla-Longa and Magnetar Capital LLC; the order also affects public access to the petitioner’s memorandum and supporting documents.
What happened
In Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC, the parties jointly proposed redactions to the petitioner’s legal memorandum and supporting documents for his petition to vacate an arbitration award.
The court approved all proposed redactions. For redactions the parties disputed, it approved the redactions proposed by Respondents. The court said the redactions were necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the petitioner to file the redacted memorandum and supporting documents by February 28, 2020, and did not decide the petition to vacate the arbitration award in this order.
The detailed version
- Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11246
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
The parties sent letters to Chambers on February 14 and February 21, 2020, jointly proposing redactions to Damian Dalla-Longa’s memorandum of law and supporting documents filed in support of his petition to vacate the arbitration award. Where the parties disagreed about proposed redactions, they submitted their respective positions.
Court’s Analysis
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 considerations. The court determined that the proposed redactions were necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the parties’ proposed redactions. Where the parties disputed proposed redactions, the court granted Respondents’ proposed redactions. The court ordered the petitioner to file the memorandum and supporting documents with those redactions by February 28, 2020. This order addressed access to and redaction of documents; it did not rule on the merits of the petition to vacate the arbitration award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.