Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-00769
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cengage Learning v. Doe 1, Judge Koeltl granted plaintiffs’ request to file certain documents containing PayPal account numbers under seal.
The plaintiffs and the defendants whose PayPal account numbers appeared in the documents; the public will not have access to the full account numbers in those sealed materials.
What happened
Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1 involved plaintiffs’ request to keep certain financial account information from public view in documents supporting their request for damages after a default judgment filing.
The plaintiffs sought permission to file under seal a supplemental declaration and exhibits containing full PayPal account numbers. They said they would file redacted versions publicly, with only the full account numbers omitted.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the sealing request. The order does not provide additional reasoning beyond granting the request.
The detailed version
- Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1 · No. 1:20-cv-00769
- John Koeltl
- Dec. 31, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs—Cengage Learning, Inc., Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC doing business as Macmillan Learning, Elsevier Inc., McGraw Hill LLC, and Pearson Education, Inc.—asked to file under seal a supplemental declaration and exhibits supporting their request for damages connected to a default judgment filing. The documents contained full PayPal account numbers for certain defendants.
The plaintiffs stated that they would file redacted versions on the court’s electronic filing system, omitting the full PayPal account numbers. They cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(4), which generally requires financial account numbers to be redacted before filing unless the court orders otherwise. They argued that sealing the complete numbers would protect private financial information while still allowing the court to connect the accounts to the applicable defendants.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the plaintiffs’ request. The opinion text does not state any further conditions or explain the ruling beyond the order that the request was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.