McLaughlin v. Macquarie Capital Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:17-cv-09023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McLaughlin v. Macquarie Capital, Judge Abrams granted the parties’ request to redact portions of three exhibits.
The parties, nonparties whose identities appeared in the exhibits, and members of the public seeking access to those judicial documents.
What happened
In McLaughlin v. Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., the parties asked to redact limited portions of Exhibits A, C, and F attached to Macquarie’s petition to confirm an arbitration award.
The requested redactions covered nonparties’ identities and certain allegations and statements the parties described as private, salacious, or inaccurate. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrow and served substantial privacy interests.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to file the three exhibits with the proposed redactions.
The detailed version
- McLaughlin v. Macquarie Capital Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09023
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 16, 2020
Background
Macquarie Capital (U.S.A.) Inc. filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award. The parties asked the court to permit limited redactions in Exhibits A, C, and F to that petition. The proposed redactions included the identities of nonparties and portions of filings and correspondence containing allegations or statements described in the request as salacious and inaccurate.
Access and Redaction Standard
The court stated that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access under the First Amendment and common law. A request to seal or redact such documents must be narrowly tailored to serve the stated purpose and must be consistent with public access. Privacy interests, including the privacy of third parties, may support limited redactions.
Ruling
The parties’ request to redact portions of Exhibits A, C, and F was granted. The court found that the redactions had been properly limited and were narrowly tailored to further substantial interests, including third-party privacy interests. The Clerk of Court was directed to file the documents associated with docket entries 72, 73, and 74 with the parties’ proposed redactions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.