Shift4 Payments, LLC v. Westamerica Bank
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-01609
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shift4 Payments v. Westamerica Bank, Judge Carter granted sealing but struck improperly redacted filings and ordered permanent redactions.
Shift4 Payments, LLC was permitted to seek protection for confidential pricing information, but it had to refile the complaint with permanent redactions after the court struck the improperly redacted filings. Westamerica Bank was identified as the other party to the agreement.
What happened
Shift4 Payments, LLC asked the court to seal an unredacted complaint and allow a redacted version to be filed publicly. It sought to hide six dollar amounts containing confidential pricing terms from an agreement with Westamerica Bank.
Shift4 argued that public disclosure could harm both companies' positions in future negotiations and that the redactions were narrowly limited. The request concerned only the specific dollar references, not the agreement's structure or the amount at issue.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Shift4's letter motion to seal, but ruled that the filings at ECF Nos. 1 and 5-1 were not properly redacted. The court struck ECF Nos. 1 and 5, ordered Shift4 to refile the complaint with permanent redactions, and directed the clerk to retain the docket text for those filings.
The detailed version
- Shift4 Payments, LLC v. Westamerica Bank · No. 1:21-cv-01609
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Shift4 Payments, LLC filed a letter motion asking the court to permit an unredacted version of its complaint to be filed under seal and a redacted version to remain available to the public. Shift4 said the complaint disclosed six specific dollar amounts reflecting confidential pricing terms in a Sponsorship and Marketing Agreement between Shift4 and Westamerica Bank. It argued that disclosure could harm the parties' negotiating positions in future transactions and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Court’s Analysis
The request concerned access to judicial records. The court considered the general presumption that the public may access court records against the need to protect confidential or competitively sensitive business information. The opinion states that the dollar amounts did not describe the structure or operation of the disputed contract provisions or the amount in controversy, but instead reflected pricing terms whose disclosure could cause competitive harm in future negotiations.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Plaintiff's letter motion to seal. The court also advised Shift4 that the documents at ECF Nos. 1 and 5-1 were not properly redacted. It therefore struck the documents at ECF Nos. 1 and 5, ordered Shift4 to refile the complaint with permanent redactions, and directed the clerk to retain the docket text at ECF Nos. 1 and 5 for the record. The opinion does not state that the action itself was dismissed or decide the parties' underlying contract dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.