Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2020

Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:15-cv-09300
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase, Judge Schofield granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal a joint letter to protect confidential business information.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the individuals identified in the attached appendix. The unredacted joint letter remains sealed, and access is limited to those persons.

What happened

In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., the plaintiffs asked the court to seal portions of a joint letter. The defendants filed a letter supporting that request.

The court said that the public generally has a right to access court documents, but that right is not absolute. It found that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The unredacted joint letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals listed in an attached appendix may access it.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:15-cv-09300
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
July 20, 2020

Background

On July 10, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to seal portions of a joint letter. On July 14, 2020, the defendants filed a letter supporting the motion.

Legal standard

The court explained that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is strong but not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The court ordered that the unredacted version of the joint letter remain sealed and that only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix have access. The court stated that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.