Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Synamedia LTD.
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-10879
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cisco Systems v. Synamedia, Judge Swain granted in part and denied in part Cisco’s motion to seal complaint materials, requiring damages figures to remain public.
Cisco Systems, Inc., Synamedia LTD., and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. Cisco could keep some information redacted, but its damages figures in specified complaint paragraphs had to remain public.
What happened
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Synamedia LTD. involved Cisco’s request to file an unredacted complaint and exhibits under seal while placing redacted versions on the public docket.
The court denied sealing for damages figures in four complaint paragraphs because those figures were central to Cisco’s breach-of-contract claim and Cisco’s general claim of commercially sensitive pricing was insufficient. The court granted sealing for remaining redactions involving pre-suit negotiations and contract provisions not placed at issue, but allowed reconsideration if those matters later became relevant.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Cisco to refile a compliant redacted complaint and exhibits by February 22, 2021, while keeping the unredacted materials under seal and maintaining existing electronic viewing restrictions.
The detailed version
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Synamedia LTD. · No. 1:20-cv-10879
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 18, 2021
Background
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a letter motion asking to seal complete, unredacted copies of its complaint and exhibits and to file redacted copies publicly. The requested redactions covered damages figures, pre-suit negotiations between Cisco and Synamedia LTD., and contractual provisions.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Cisco’s application.
The court denied the application to the extent Cisco sought to redact the damages amounts in paragraphs 1, 9, 21, and 51 of the complaint. The court explained that the damages amount was a core part of Cisco’s breach-of-contract claim and that a presumption of public access applied to the complaint. Cisco’s general assertion that the figures reflected commercially sensitive pricing information did not overcome that presumption.
The court granted the application for the remaining redactions concerning pre-suit negotiations and contractual provisions that the complaint did not place at issue. That grant was without prejudice to reconsideration if the parties later placed those negotiations or provisions at issue in the case.
Orders
Cisco was ordered to refile a redacted complaint and exhibits consistent with the order by February 22, 2021. The Clerk was directed to keep the hard copy of the unredacted complaint and exhibits under seal and to maintain the existing electronic viewing restrictions. The order resolved Docket Entry No. 24. The order addressed sealing and public access; it did not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.