Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 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 ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase, Judge Schofield granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal confidential portions of a joint letter.

Who this affects

The parties and the individuals listed in the attached appendix may access the unredacted joint letter; other access to that version is restricted, while a redacted version may be filed.

What happened

In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Plaintiffs asked the court to seal portions of a joint letter. Defendants filed a letter supporting the request.

The court granted the motion. The unredacted joint letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals listed in an attached appendix may access it.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ruled that filing a redacted version was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.

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. 15, 2020

Background

On September 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal portions of a joint letter. On September 11, 2020, Defendants filed a letter supporting the motion.

Ruling

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

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

Effect

This order addresses access to the specified joint letter. It does not decide the underlying claims or defenses described in the opinion text.

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.