EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-08076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, LLC, Judge Moses ordered limited redactions of a discovery exhibit to protect confidential business information.
EFCG, the defendants, nonparties whose information appeared in the exhibit, and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.
What happened
In EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, LLC, defendants initially sought permission to file a discovery letter and exhibits under seal because they contained documents marked for attorneys’ eyes only by EFCG. The court previously denied that request while allowing a renewed application explaining why redactions, rather than complete sealing, were needed.
EFCG then asked to redact specific portions of Exhibit D-1, which contained information about its business and nonparties. The court found that the exhibit was subject to a presumption of public access, but gave that presumption less weight because the exhibit supported a discovery dispute rather than the case’s merits. It also found that the proposed redactions were limited and protected nonpublic information about conference attendees and strategic business discussions.
Judge Moses ordered defendants to refile the discovery letter and exhibits publicly after making the requested redactions to Exhibit D-1. Documents 129 and 147 were to remain sealed, and the clerk was directed to close the letter-motion at Document 146.
The detailed version
- EFCG, Inc. v. AEC Advisors, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08076
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Defendants filed a letter-motion seeking permission to submit a discovery-related letter and Exhibits D-1 through D-6 under seal. They explained that the exhibits included documents marked “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by EFCG. In an earlier order, the court denied that request without prejudice and allowed renewal if the parties explained why the materials needed to be sealed entirely rather than redacted.
EFCG—not defendants—filed the renewed sealing application. EFCG did not ask to seal the entire filing. Instead, it requested redactions to certain portions of Exhibit D-1, asserting that those portions discussed confidential, commercially sensitive information whose disclosure could harm EFCG’s competitive position. EFCG also filed a copy of Exhibit D-1 under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted. Defendants opposed the renewed application, arguing that the information had already been made public or did not qualify as trade-secret or confidential information.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that Exhibit D-1 was a “judicial document,” meaning a court filing to which a presumption of public access applies. The court found that the presumption was not especially strong here because the exhibit supported a discovery motion rather than a motion addressing the merits of the dispute. The exhibit’s main purpose also appeared to be showing that parts of the discovery dispute were pending in a related New York state-court case.
The court concluded that competing interests justified limited redactions. The proposed redactions protected nonpublic information about nonparties, including a list of individual client representatives who attended EFCG’s 30th Annual Chief Executive Officer Conference, as well as nonpublic strategic business discussions between EFCG and nonparties. The court found that public disclosure could harm EFCG’s competitive position and that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses ordered defendants to refile the September 8 discovery letter and its corresponding exhibits in public view after redacting Exhibit D-1 as requested by EFCG. Documents 129 and 147 were to remain under seal. The clerk was directed to close the letter-motion at Document 146.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.