IN RE GTX, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-03239
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In IN RE GTX, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Judge Torres ordered the parties to address unsealing a redacted dismissal opinion.
The parties must state whether they consent to unsealing the opinion and justify any proposed redactions; public access to the court’s opinion is also at issue.
What happened
IN RE GTX, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION concerns a redacted court opinion issued after the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Court said sealing may no longer be warranted and explained that redactions must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the public’s access to judicial documents. The parties’ consent or a confidentiality agreement alone is generally not enough to justify secrecy.
Judge Analisa Torres ordered the parties to file a letter by June 30, 2020, stating whether they consented to unsealing the opinion and, if not, explaining any proposed redactions.
The detailed version
- IN RE GTX, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION · No. 1:19-cv-03239
- Analisa Torres
- June 23, 2020
Background
The order states that, on June 23, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court issued the opinion on the public docket with redactions consistent with sealing requests that the parties had previously submitted and the Court had approved.
Public Access and Redactions
The Court said that sealing might no longer be warranted. It explained that any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be narrowly tailored to the purpose supporting secrecy and must be consistent with the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. The Court also stated that the parties’ consent, or the fact that information is covered by a confidentiality agreement, generally is not by itself enough to overcome that presumption.
Order
Judge Analisa Torres ordered the parties to file a letter by June 30, 2020. The letter must state whether they consent to unsealing the Court’s opinion on the motion to dismiss. If they do not consent, the parties must explain their justifications for any proposed redactions. The order itself directs the parties to address unsealing; it does not state that the opinion was unsealed at that time.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.