Guidehouse LLP v. Shah
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-09470
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guidehouse v. Shah, Judge Vyskocil granted Guidehouse’s consent motion to seal narrow information about compensation and finances in pretrial filings.
Guidehouse LLP and Rizwan Shah, whose confidential business and financial information was redacted from public filings; the public’s access to the unredacted documents is limited.
What happened
In Guidehouse LLP v. Shah, Guidehouse asked to redact limited information from a proposed joint pretrial order and an exhibit, with Shah’s consent.
The requested redactions covered Guidehouse’s partner-compensation model and information about Shah’s salary, bonuses, other payments, and equity holdings. Guidehouse argued that the information had competitive value, while Shah also had a privacy interest in his personal finances.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the consent motion to seal. The unredacted versions of the documents will remain under seal until the court orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Guidehouse LLP v. Shah · No. 1:19-cv-09470
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 13, 2021
Background
Guidehouse LLP moved, with Defendant Rizwan Shah’s consent, to redact limited portions of the publicly filed Proposed Joint Pretrial Order and Exhibit 1. Guidehouse asked the court to keep unredacted versions of those documents under seal. The court had previously allowed Guidehouse to redact the same information from its statement of undisputed facts and ordered the unredacted version kept under seal.
Requested Redactions
The information at issue concerned two categories: confidential details about Guidehouse’s partner-compensation model and Shah’s compensation while employed at Guidehouse, including his salary, bonuses, other payments, and the monetary value of his equity holdings. Guidehouse argued that these details had competitive value and could harm its business interests if publicly disclosed. Shah also had a privacy interest in keeping his personal financial information confidential.
Ruling
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access, but privacy interests and competitively valuable business information can outweigh that presumption when redactions are narrowly tailored. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Plaintiff’s consent motion to seal. The unredacted versions of the Joint Pretrial Order and Exhibit 1 are to remain under seal under further order of the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.