Moshell v. Sasol Limited
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Moshell v. Sasol Limited, Judge Cronan required more information before deciding requests to seal or redact several exhibits.
The order affected Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the parties’ requests to seal or redact exhibits filed with Plaintiffs’ opposition papers, including privacy interests concerning CW-5.
What happened
Moshell v. Sasol Limited involved requests to seal or redact exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motions for reconsideration and sanctions.
The parties disagreed about sealing several exhibits. The Court required Plaintiffs and Defendants to submit additional letters by February 9, 2021 explaining the legal and privacy grounds for sealing or redacting specified exhibits.
Judge Cronan did not decide the sealing requests in this order. He warned that Exhibit 2 would be unsealed on February 9 without further notice if Plaintiffs neither withdrew it nor provided supporting authority.
The detailed version
- Moshell v. Sasol Limited · No. 1:20-cv-01008
- John Cronan
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions for reconsideration of an earlier order and for sanctions. Plaintiffs also asked the Court to approve sealing or redacting numerous exhibits attached to that opposition. Defendants requested sealing of Exhibits 39, 40, 41, 42, and 47, and later submitted arguments supporting that request. Plaintiffs opposed sealing those five exhibits.
Issues Identified by the Court
The Court required additional information about Exhibits 1, 2, 8, 43, and 45. For Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs had to explain why its caption and first twelve paragraphs met the legal standard for sealing. For Exhibit 2, the Court stated that the current record showed no basis for sealing a legal analysis shared with opposing counsel and the Court. Plaintiffs could either identify additional authority supporting sealing or withdraw the exhibit.
For Exhibit 8, Plaintiffs had to explain why the entire exhibit needed to be sealed instead of redacting account information, contact information, and outgoing-call information. For Exhibit 43, Plaintiffs had to explain the basis for sealing a disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), and identify any specific portions they wanted redacted. For Exhibit 45, Plaintiffs had to explain why sealing the entire exhibit was necessary to protect CW-5’s privacy rather than redacting CW-5’s name or information that could reveal CW-5’s identity.
Order
The Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit a letter addressing the identified issues by February 9, 2021. It also ordered Defendants to submit a separate letter by that date addressing the exhibits and arguments supporting sealing or redaction, including justification for sealing Exhibits 39, 40, 41, 42, and 47. Defendants were permitted to address Exhibits 43 and 45 as well.
The Court stated that if Plaintiffs did not withdraw Exhibit 2 or provide authority supporting its sealing, the Court would unseal Exhibit 2 on February 9 without further notice. Judge John P. Cronan’s order required further submissions; it did not decide the underlying motions for reconsideration or sanctions, or finally resolve all requests to seal or redact.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.