Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 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
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

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

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, defendants, and the individuals identified in the attached appendix are affected by the sealing order. The unredacted joint letter is not available to the general public.

What happened

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

The court granted the motion to seal. The unredacted joint letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and people identified in an attached appendix may access it.

Judge Schofield ruled that sealing was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information, while recognizing that public access to court documents is not absolute.

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
Sept. 3, 2020

Background

On August 31, 2020, the plaintiffs moved to seal portions of a joint letter. On September 2, 2020, the defendants filed a letter supporting the motion.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The unredacted version of the joint letter will remain sealed, and access will be limited to the parties and the individuals identified in the attached appendix.

The court explained that the public has a common-law right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance the presumption of public access against competing considerations based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Here, the court found that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.

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.