The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:16-cv-08778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Travelers v. Northrop Grumman, Judge Schofield granted Northrop Grumman’s request to keep a filing sealed.
Northrop Grumman and the attorneys it identified were allowed access to the sealed letter; the letter was not made publicly accessible.
What happened
The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation concerns Northrop Grumman’s request to file its response to Travelers’ pre-motion letter under seal.
The court ordered that the letter remain sealed and accessible only to the attorneys Northrop Grumman identified. The court found that the proposed redactions and sealed filing were narrowly tailored and necessary to protect confidential or prejudicial business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the letter motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the related docket entry. The court also said it retains discretion over whether to treat the sealed material as confidential in future orders or proceedings.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation · No. 1:16-cv-08778
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 21, 2020
Background
Northrop Grumman asked to file under seal its response to Travelers’ April 3, 2020, pre-motion letter. The request was made by letter dated April 16, 2020.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the public generally has a common-law right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. The court found that Northrop Grumman’s proposed redactions and sealed filing were narrowly tailored and necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential or prejudicial business information.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Northrop Grumman’s letter motion. The court ordered that the letter filed at Docket No. 322 remain under seal and be accessible only to the attorneys identified by Northrop Grumman in the appendix to its motion at Docket No. 320. The court stated that it retains discretion over whether to give the sealed content confidential treatment in any future order or proceeding. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket No. 320. This order did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.