The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:16-cv-08778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Travelers Indemnity Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ motion to seal sensitive business information.
Northrop Grumman, Travelers, Century, the other parties, and the individuals listed in the appendix are affected by the sealing order; public access to the specified unredacted filings is restricted.
What happened
The Travelers Indemnity Company, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and other parties jointly asked the court to approve redactions and seal filings related to summary judgment and expert testimony.
The motion covered briefs, statements of facts, responses, declarations, and exhibits. The parties argued that the materials contained sensitive business information and could cause competitive harm if disclosed.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to seal. The unredacted documents will remain sealed, and access is limited to the parties and individuals listed in the appendix to the parties’ letter. The Clerk was directed to close two docket entries.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Northrop Grumman Corporation · No. 1:16-cv-08778
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 10, 2020
Background
Northrop Grumman, Travelers, and Century jointly filed a letter motion asking the court to approve proposed redactions and seal Northrop Grumman’s and the insurers’ summary-judgment and expert-testimony briefs, statements of material facts and responses, supporting declarations, and exhibits.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal. It ordered that the unredacted versions of the identified documents remain sealed and that only the parties and individuals listed in the appendix to the parties’ letter have access. The court explained that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is not absolute and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information and avoid competitive disadvantage.
Additional Order
The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Nos. 354 and 424.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.