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 Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Judge Schofield granted Defendants’ request to redact trade-secret information.
The order affects Defendants’ response and public access to that filing by allowing specified redactions of sensitive business information involving trade secrets.
What happened
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Defendants asked to redact information from their response opposing Plaintiffs’ objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations.
The requested redactions covered confidential and proprietary business information involving trade secrets. The court stated that public access to court documents is not absolute and must be balanced against competing concerns.
Judge Schofield granted the request, finding that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business information. The court also warned that it retains discretion over confidential treatment in future orders and opinions.
The detailed version
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-00211
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 7, 2020
Background
Defendants asked the court to approve redactions to their response opposing Plaintiffs’ objections to a report and recommendations. The request was made by letter dated February 24, 2020, and was docketed as Dkt. No. 601.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in history but is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. Here, the proposed redactions concerned confidential and proprietary business information regarding trade secrets.
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information. It also advised the parties that the court retains discretion about whether to give confidential treatment to redacted information in orders and opinions.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ request. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Dkt. No. 601.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.