Mader v. Experian Information Soultions, LLC
- Sciornb
- 1:19-cv-03787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mader v. Experian Information Solutions, LLC, Judge Sciornb addressed sealing Navient exhibits, but the provided text does not show the order’s complete disposition.
Plaintiff Michael Mader, non-party Navient, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits.
What happened
Mader v. Experian Information Solutions, LLC concerns Plaintiff Michael Mader’s request to seal exhibits filed with his motion for an indicative ruling. The exhibits were designated confidential by non-party Navient because they allegedly contain information about Navient’s credit-reporting practices involving certain private student loans.
The court explained that judicial records are generally open to the public, although courts may protect privacy interests and confidential business information. The party seeking secrecy must provide evidence showing that disclosure would cause clearly defined and serious harm.
Judge Sciornb’s order required Navient to address, for each exhibit, whether it sought sealing or redaction, the legal basis for that request, and the harm disclosure would cause. The provided text ends before the order’s full operative language, so it does not clearly show whether the motion to seal was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
The detailed version
- Mader v. Experian Information Soultions, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03787
- Sciornb
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Mader filed a motion for an indicative ruling, supporting exhibits, and a motion to seal those exhibits. The exhibits sought to be sealed were designated confidential by non-party Navient. According to Mader’s memorandum, Navient claimed that the exhibits contained confidential information about its business practices concerning credit reporting on private student loans to non-Title IV schools.
Legal standard
The court stated that the public has a strong common-law right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance the presumption of public access against competing considerations, including a nonparty’s privacy interests. The court further stated that the person or entity seeking to seal a document must support the request with competent evidence showing that the document reveals trade secrets or other confidential business information and that disclosure would cause clearly defined and serious harm.
Court’s stated requirements
The court referred to its Individual Rule I.D.3, which governs requests to file documents under seal or in redacted form. The visible portion of the order states that Navient must specify, for each exhibit, whether it seeks sealing or redaction, explain the basis for its request, and identify the harm it would suffer if the document were sealed or redacted. It also states that Navient should request redaction rather than sealing when only some information requires confidential treatment, and that any redactions must comply with Individual Rule I.D.3.
Disposition
The provided opinion text is incomplete: it ends immediately after the words “It is hereby” and includes fragments of the apparent directive to Navient. Because the operative portion is missing, the text does not establish whether Mader’s motion to seal was granted, denied, or resolved in another way. The opinion does establish that the order addressed a document-sealing request and set out requirements for Navient’s position.
Judge-name note
The signature in the provided text renders the judge’s name as “LORNA G. Sciornb.” That rendering may reflect an unclear or corrupted transcription; no different spelling is supplied in the opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.