Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott, Judge Furman temporarily granted permission to file certain exhibits under seal.
The parties, including defendant Paul Herriott and the plaintiffs, because the order temporarily permits certain exhibits to be filed under seal while preserving the court’s later decision on permanent redactions.
What happened
In Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott, defendant Paul Herriott asked to file Exhibits A through C to a declaration under seal while opposing the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The documents included agreements and information designated confidential under the parties’ confidentiality agreement.
Exhibits B and C had been produced by the plaintiffs and marked confidential or highly confidential. Defendant Herriott had marked Exhibit A confidential and said Exhibits A and B concerned personal financial information.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the application. He said the court would decide whether to keep the redactions permanently when it considered the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 120.
The detailed version
- Willis RE Inc. v. Herriott · No. 1:21-cv-00487
- Jesse Furman
- May 10, 2021
Background
Defendant Paul Herriott submitted a letter motion seeking permission to file Exhibits A through C to the declaration of Mark S. Sullivan under seal. The declaration was intended to support a supplemental memorandum opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The parties had entered into a confidentiality agreement allowing either party to designate information as confidential or highly confidential. The agreement required a party seeking to file designated material with the court to ask for permission to file it under seal. Plaintiffs had produced Exhibits B and C and designated them confidential and highly confidential, respectively. Herriott had designated Exhibit A confidential. The letter stated that Exhibits A and B were agreements concerning Herriott’s personal financial information and that the agreement had been treated as confidential in the ordinary course of business.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application on a temporary basis. The court stated that it would evaluate whether to maintain the redactions permanently when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 120.
Effect
The order temporarily allowed the requested filing treatment for the identified exhibits but did not make a permanent decision about maintaining the redactions. The opinion does not identify the plaintiffs by name or explain the ultimate ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.