Didonato v. GS Services Limited Partnership
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-02154-LGS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Didonato v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Judge Schofield kept a letter sealed, ordered responses, and set service deadlines.
Francis Didonato, the defendants, and non-party Navient Solutions, LLC. The letter remained sealed, and the defendants and Navient were given an opportunity to respond to the request to modify the protective order.
What happened
In Didonato v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Francis Didonato asked to change the case’s protective order and filed the request under seal. He also asked the court to keep that letter sealed.
The court ordered the defendants and non-party Navient Solutions, LLC, to respond to the request by January 25, 2021. It also ordered the plaintiff to serve Navient with the order and the letter by January 21, 2021.
Judge Schofield granted the request to seal retroactively, kept the letter sealed to protect Navient’s confidential business information, and directed the Clerk to close the sealing motion.
The detailed version
- Didonato v. GS Services Limited Partnership · No. 1:20-cv-02154-LGS
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
On January 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed under seal a letter asking to modify the protective order in the action. Plaintiff also filed a motion asking the court to seal that letter. The letter was filed at Docket No. 105, and the sealing motion was filed at Docket Nos. 102 and 103.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered the defendants and non-party Navient Solutions, LLC, to file any response to Plaintiff’s letter by January 25, 2021. The court also ordered Plaintiff to serve Navient with a copy of the order and the letter by January 21, 2021.
The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to seal retroactively and ordered that the letter remain sealed. The court explained that public access to judicial documents is not absolute and that sealing was necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of Navient’s confidential business information. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 103.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.