Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-00211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores v. The Trizetto Group, Judge Schofield granted both parties’ requests to redact sensitive business information.
The plaintiffs and defendants, whose requests for redactions were both granted; public access to the earlier opinion and order will be subject to the approved redactions.
What happened
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., both sides asked the court to redact parts of an earlier opinion and order.
The defendants identified confidential business operations, strategy, and trade-secret information. The plaintiffs identified proprietary information, including information about their clients. The court found the proposed redactions narrowly tailored to protect that sensitive information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted both parties’ requests and directed that a public copy of the earlier opinion and order would be issued with the redactions. The clerk was directed to close the related docket entry.
The detailed version
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-00211
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested redactions to the court’s March 24, 2020, opinion and order. The request was submitted by letter dated March 27, 2020.
Reasons for Redaction
The defendants’ proposed redactions concerned confidential and proprietary information about internal business operations and strategy, as well as the parties’ trade secrets. The plaintiffs’ proposed redactions concerned proprietary business information, including information about the plaintiffs’ clients.
The court recognized that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that access is not absolute. The court stated that it must balance public access against competing considerations. It found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted both parties’ requests for redactions. The court stated that a public copy of the March 24 opinion and order would follow with the proposed redactions. The clerk was directed to close Docket No. 610.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.