GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-04826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GE Transportation Parts v. Central Railway Manufacturing, Judge Nathan denied requests to redact settlement information and ordered unredacted filings.
GE Transportation Parts, LLC and Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC, whose requests for redactions were denied and whose filings were ordered to be filed or made public without redactions.
What happened
GE Transportation Parts, LLC and Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC jointly asked to keep settlement-related information redacted. They argued that the settlement was commercially sensitive and covered by a confidentiality provision.
The court said those general reasons were not enough to justify hiding information in court records. It denied the redaction requests, ordered the June 1, 2020 memorandum and order filed without redactions, and required Central Railway to refile two transfer-motion briefs without redactions within one week. The court also said GE Transportation’s opposition would be made public.
In GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC, Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order on June 24, 2020, resolving the parties’ request at Docket No. 52.
The detailed version
- GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04826
- James Oetken
- June 24, 2020
Background
The parties renewed a request to redact confidential settlement-related information from court filings. They argued that redactions were justified by the settlement’s general commercial sensitivity and by a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that broad and general findings do not justify redacting judicial documents. It also stated that a confidentiality obligation, by itself, does not justify redaction, including when the obligation is intended to protect a third party.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the parties’ redaction requests. The June 1, 2020 Memorandum and Order was to be filed without redactions. The court ordered Central Railway Manufacturing to refile its opening memorandum and reply supporting its transfer motion, identified as Docket Nos. 22 and 39, in unredacted form no later than one week after the order. The unredacted version of GE Transportation Parts’ opposition to the transfer motion, Docket No. 31, was to be made publicly available. The order resolved Docket No. 52.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.