Kassman v. KPMG LLP
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:11-cv-03743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kassman v. KPMG LLP, Judge Schofield granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibit A, limiting access to listed parties and individuals.
The plaintiffs, KPMG LLP, and the parties and individuals identified in the appendix are affected. The unredacted Exhibit A remains sealed, and access is limited to those identified people.
What happened
In Kassman v. KPMG LLP, the defendant filed a motion seeking to redact and seal parts of Exhibit A. The court gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to oppose the motion, but no opposition letter was filed.
The order states that the unredacted Exhibit A will remain sealed and that only the parties and individuals listed in an attached appendix may access it. The court said filing a redacted version was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Kassman v. KPMG LLP · No. 1:11-cv-03743
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
On October 14, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to redact and seal portions of Exhibit A to a proposed order filed at Docket Nos. 945 and 946. On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiffs to submit any opposition by October 20, 2020. No opposition letter was filed.
Ruling
The order states that “Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED.” The unredacted version of Exhibit A, filed at Docket No. 946, will remain sealed. Access is limited to the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix.
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that access is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing interests. Here, the court found that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.
Effect of the Order
The ruling concerns access to Exhibit A and does not address the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute. The appendix identifies attorneys of record for the plaintiffs and KPMG LLP as people who should have access to the sealed document.
Textual inconsistency
The order’s background says that the defendant filed the motion to redact and seal, but its operative language says that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is granted. This summary reports the disposition as written in the order and does not resolve that apparent inconsistency.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.