Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 22, 2021

Scaminaci v. Jaffrey

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-00321
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Scaminacti v. Jaffrey, Judge Vyskocil granted requests to redact confidential business information and kept unredacted filings under seal.

Who this affects

The parties, the proposed intervenor, and members of the public seeking access to the specified filings.

What happened

In Scaminacti v. Jaffrey, the parties and a proposed intervenor asked to redact certain filings to protect confidential business information.

The court said the public generally has a right to access court filings, but found that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored to protect sensitive and proprietary information. It granted the requests and kept the unredacted documents under seal.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the four letter motions seeking the redactions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Scaminaci v. Jaffrey · No. 1:21-cv-00321
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 22, 2021

Background

The court received letter motions from the parties and a proposed intervenor asking to redact certain filings to protect confidential business information. The opinion identifies the motions as docket entries 12, 15, 19, and 30.

Analysis

The court recognized a presumptive public right to access the filings. It nevertheless found that courts in the circuit regularly permit narrowly tailored redactions protecting sensitive and proprietary information. After reviewing the proposed redactions, the court found them narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information.

Ruling

The court granted the requests to redact the specified filings. It ordered that the unredacted versions remain under seal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motions at docket entries 12, 15, 19, and 30.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.