Moshell v. Sasol Limited
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moshell v. Sasol, Judge Cronan granted Defendants’ request to seal a reply brief and publicly file a redacted version.
The order directly affected the defendants’ filing of their reply brief, the plaintiff’s asserted confidentiality interests, the privacy interests of confidential witnesses, and public access to the quoted material.
What happened
In Chad Lindsey Moshell v. Sasol Ltd., et al., the defendants asked to seal their reply supporting motions for reconsideration and sanctions and to file a redacted public version.
The proposed redactions quoted documents and transcripts that the court had already sealed, including material that could reveal confidential witnesses’ identities and material reflecting the plaintiff’s counsel’s and investigator’s mental impressions, strategy, and opinions.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ request, allowing the reply brief to be filed under seal and a redacted version to be filed publicly. The order did not decide the underlying motions or claims.
The detailed version
- Moshell v. Sasol Limited · No. 1:20-cv-01008
- John Cronan
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
Defendants Sasol Limited, David Edward Constable, Bongani Nqwababa, Stephen Cornell, Paul Victor, and Stephan Schoeman asked for permission to file under seal their reply memorandum supporting their motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 24, 2020 memorandum order and motion for sanctions. They also asked to file a public version with redactions.
Reason for the Request
The proposed redactions quoted documents previously filed under seal. Some material could reveal the identities of confidential witnesses. Other material reflected the mental impressions, strategy, and opinions of Chad Lindsey Moshell’s counsel and private investigator. The request stated that the court had previously found that the confidential witnesses’ privacy interests, and the plaintiff’s interests in limiting dissemination of confidential material, outweighed the presumption of public access to the limited information at issue.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ request. The defendants could file the reply brief under seal and publicly file a version redacting information quoted from exhibits that the court had previously ordered sealed. This order addressed filing and public access; the opinion text does not decide the merits of the motion for reconsideration or the motion for sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.