Mader v. Experian Information Soultions, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-03787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mader v. Experian, Judge Schofield granted Navient’s sealing application, requiring redactions for Exhibits B, C, and H and sealing Exhibits E, F, and G.
Michael Mader, nonparty Navient, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits were affected. Mader had to file some exhibits with redactions and others under seal, while Exhibit D was to remain publicly viewable.
What happened
In Mader v. Experian Information Solutions, LLC, Michael Mader asked to file exhibits under seal in connection with a motion for an indicative ruling. The exhibits had been designated confidential by nonparty Navient, which argued that they contained private business information and Mader’s personal identifying information.
The court explained that court records are generally available to the public, but that access can be limited when a party shows that disclosure would cause serious harm. Navient argued that some exhibits revealed its business structure, practices, employee identities, loan-servicing information, and internal policies. Mader opposed most of the requested protections but agreed that his personal identifying information should be redacted.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Navient’s application. The court ordered Mader to file Exhibits B, C, and H with redactions, file Exhibits E, F, and G under seal, and file Exhibit D publicly. The court also directed the Clerk to close the motions listed at Docket Nos. 102, 116, and 119.
The detailed version
- Mader v. Experian Information Soultions, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03787
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Michael Mader filed a motion for an indicative ruling and a motion to seal exhibits. The exhibits included documents that nonparty Navient had designated as confidential. Navient later asked the court to require redactions in Exhibits B, C, and H and to keep Exhibits E, F, and G under seal. Navient argued that these documents contained confidential information about its business structure, business practices, employee identities, private student-loan servicing, internal coding, credit and origination policies, and sales practices. Navient also identified Mader’s Social Security number and other financial account information in Exhibit H.
Mader opposed most of Navient’s requests, arguing that the documents did not contain competitively relevant information and that Navient had disclosed the subject matter in public filings. Mader agreed that his personal identifying information in Exhibit H should be redacted.
Legal standard
The court stated that judicial documents carry a strong presumption of public access, but that the presumption is not absolute. A party seeking to restrict access must provide competent evidence showing that disclosure would reveal trade secrets or other confidential business information and cause clearly defined and serious harm. The privacy interests of nonparties are also a recognized exception to public access.
Ruling
The court granted Navient’s application. It ordered Mader to file Exhibits B, C, and H in redacted form and Exhibits E, F, and G under seal by March 24, 2021. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored, explaining that the information could give competitors access to details about how Navient manages loans and that Exhibit H contained Mader’s personal identifying information. The court also rejected Mader’s argument that Navient’s public filings eliminated the confidentiality of specific information in the exhibits. Exhibit D was to be filed publicly.
The court stated that it retained discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to documents or information submitted in connection with later motions or proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motions at Docket Nos. 102, 116, and 119. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.