Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, Judge Schofield granted redactions to protect confidential business information in class-certification filings.
The defendants, the plaintiffs, the attorneys permitted to access the sealed documents, and members of the public seeking access to the filings were affected by the order.
What happened
In Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, the defendants asked to file their opposition to the plaintiffs’ class- and collective-certification motion with redactions. The request followed an earlier order allowing redactions to protect confidential business information, including non-parties’ compensation information.
The court explained that the public normally has a right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance public access against other concerns, including protecting confidential business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants’ redaction requests. She ordered the defendants to publicly file redacted versions by March 2, 2020, while documents at Docket Nos. 98 and 99 would remain sealed and accessible only to specified attorneys who had appeared in the case.
The detailed version
- Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10476
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 27, 2020
Background
The defendants requested permission for filings related to the plaintiffs’ motion for class and collective certification to be submitted with redactions. The request concerned the defendants’ opposition and supporting documents, and followed an earlier order allowing redactions to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information, including information about non-parties’ compensation.
Analysis
The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial documents but stated that the right is not absolute. The court therefore balanced the presumption of access against the need to protect confidential business information.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ redaction requests. It ordered the defendants to publicly file the opposition and supporting documents in redacted form on the electronic filing system by March 2, 2020. Documents at Docket Nos. 98 and 99 were to remain sealed and accessible only to the attorneys listed in the order who had appeared in the case. The court also stated that it retained discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to redacted information in future orders and opinions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.