AmTrust North America, Inc. v. MBA Network, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-06241
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In AmTrust North America, Inc. v. MBA Network, LLC, Judge Engelmayer allowed unredacted settlement-enforcement papers, permitting only account-number redactions.
AmTrust may file the settlement-enforcement documents without the proposed redactions, or may redact only account-number information; MBA’s opposition and AmTrust’s reply were assigned filing deadlines.
What happened
AmTrust North America, Inc. v. MBA Network, LLC concerns AmTrust’s request to publicly file documents supporting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. AmTrust said the documents described portions of the agreement that had previously been redacted.
The settlement agreement between AmTrust, MBA Network, LLC, and Forrest Reynolds included confidentiality provisions and contemplated public filing so the court could retain enforcement authority. AmTrust said MBA and Reynolds had breached the agreement and that public filing was needed to pursue enforcement.
Judge Engelmayer granted AmTrust’s request to file unredacted versions of the documents. He alternatively allowed AmTrust to file versions redacting only account-number information and set deadlines for MBA’s opposition and AmTrust’s reply.
The detailed version
- AmTrust North America, Inc. v. MBA Network, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-06241
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 27, 2020
Background
AmTrust asked for permission to file unredacted versions of documents supporting an upcoming motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The requested documents included a memorandum of law, a declaration, the settlement agreement, and a notice of default. AmTrust alternatively requested permission to file documents with limited redactions or an order unsealing the agreement.
The settlement agreement was reached on September 13, 2019, between AmTrust, MBA Network, LLC, and MBA’s president and owner, Forrest Reynolds. It included a confidentiality clause and stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if it was publicly filed. The court previously permitted limited redactions and later ordered the settlement agreement.
AmTrust stated that MBA and Reynolds had breached the settlement agreement. It argued that the proposed enforcement motion required describing information that had been redacted and that the need to enforce the agreement outweighed the parties’ remaining interest in confidentiality.
Legal framework described in the application
The application cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), which permits a court to order a filing under seal without redaction. It also described the presumed public-access rights that may apply to judicial records under the common law and the First Amendment. The application cited decisions applying balancing and historical-access tests to determine whether sealing is justified.
Ruling
After reviewing the proposed redactions, the court granted AmTrust’s request to file unredacted versions of the documents relating to its motion to enforce the settlement agreement. In the alternative, the court permitted AmTrust to file versions redacting only account-number information.
The court ordered that any opposition by MBA to the enforcement motion was due May 11, 2020, and that any reply by AmTrust was due May 18, 2020. This order addressed public filing and redactions; it did not decide the underlying motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.