Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2020

GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:19-cv-04826
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In GE Transportation Parts v. Central Railway Manufacturing, Judge Nathan ordered compliant joint redaction requests after finding the parties’ submission deficient.

Who this affects

GE Transportation Parts, LLC and Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC, whose joint redaction requests were ordered resubmitted.

What happened

GE Transportation Parts, LLC and Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC jointly submitted proposed redactions to the court’s June 1, 2020 Memorandum and Order.

The court found that the submission did not comply with its Individual Civil Rule 4 and did not explain how the proposed redactions fit the Second Circuit’s requirements.

Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the parties to jointly resubmit compliant redaction requests within one week of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04826
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 10, 2020

Background

The parties jointly submitted proposed redactions to the court’s June 1, 2020 Memorandum and Order. The opinion does not identify the specific information they sought to redact.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that the parties’ filing did not comply with the court’s Individual Civil Rule 4. It also did not explain how the proposed redactions would comply with the Second Circuit’s decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to jointly resubmit compliant redaction requests within one week of the order’s date. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the proposed redactions themselves.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.