Williams v. Marathon Capital of Illinois, LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-07783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Marathon Capital, Judge Koeltl granted Williams’s request to replace the complaint with a redacted version and keep the original sealed.
Logan Williams, the defendants, and the two nonparty individuals whose identifying information was to be redacted; the original complaint was to remain under seal.
What happened
In Williams v. Marathon Capital of Illinois, LLC, Logan Williams asked to replace the original complaint with a version that removed information identifying two people who were not parties to the case.
Williams also asked the court to keep the original complaint under seal. He argued that the redactions would protect the two people’s privacy without interfering with the public’s understanding of the allegations or the defendants’ ability to defend the case.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Marathon Capital of Illinois, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-07783
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Logan Williams, through counsel, asked the court to replace the complaint filed as Docket No. 1 with a redacted version. The request concerned information identifying two third parties—people who were not parties to the case—in paragraphs 3 and 46 through 49 and in footnote 1.
The letter stated that the court’s Help Desk had temporarily sealed the complaint on September 25, 2020. Williams asked that the original complaint remain sealed and that the two third parties’ names be redacted from the replacement complaint.
Arguments
Williams argued that the proposed redactions were justified by the third parties’ privacy interests. He also argued that removing their names would not undermine the public’s understanding of the complaint’s allegations, interfere with the defendants’ ability to defend the case, or prejudice the defendants.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application. The court therefore allowed the complaint to be replaced with the proposed redacted version and allowed the underlying complaint to remain under seal. The opinion does not state the nature or outcome of Williams’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.