Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03569
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aenergy v. Republic of Angola, Judge Cronan allowed provisional filing of redacted documents and required the GE Defendants to address continued sealing.
The plaintiffs, the GE Defendants, and the other defendants listed in the caption are affected by the provisional sealing and redaction procedures.
What happened
Aenergy, S.A. and Combined Cycle Power Plant Soyo, S.A. asked to file their complaint and exhibits with redactions while placing an unredacted version under seal.
The order states that the court found good cause for provisional redactions. It permits the unredacted documents to be served on all defendants.
Judge John Cronan ordered the GE Defendants to state whether they oppose public filing or explain why continued sealing is warranted, with supporting materials.
The detailed version
- Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola · No. 1:20-cv-03569
- John Cronan
- May 7, 2020
Background
Aenergy, S.A. and Combined Cycle Power Plant Soyo, S.A. applied to file their complaint and exhibits provisionally under seal and with redactions. The defendants listed in the caption are the Republic of Angola; the Ministry of Energy and Water of the Republic of Angola; the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Angola; Empresa Publica de Producao de Electricidade, EP; Empresa Nacional de Distribuicao de Electricidade; General Electric Company; General Electric International, Inc.; and GE Capital EFS Financing, Inc. The order refers to the last three entities as the GE Defendants.
Ruling
The court found good cause for the application and ordered that the complaint and exhibits could be filed provisionally with redactions. It also required an unredacted version to be filed under seal and served on all defendants. Within a period that is not legible in the provided text after being served with the unredacted documents, the GE Defendants must either file a letter saying they do not wish to seek sealed treatment, allowing the plaintiffs to file the documents publicly, or file a letter-motion explaining why continued sealing is warranted. Any request for continued sealing must identify the portions at issue and include supporting affidavits and other necessary materials under the standard discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Judge John Cronan signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.