Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.

Issue

The parties asked for permission to file certain exhibits supporting their motions in limine—motions concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence—and their post-trial briefing in redacted or sealed form.

Court’s analysis

The court recognized a strong common-law presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It explained, however, that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against competing interests. The proposed redactions concerned confidential source code; information about clients, finances, costs, and third-party business relationships; and other business information. The court determined that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that the potential competitive harm outweighed the presumption of public access for the specified filings.

Rulings

The court granted Syntel’s requests concerning:

- Syntel’s first motion in limine, filed at Docket Nos. 729-1 and 729-3, because the document included information about Syntel’s clients and finances. - Syntel’s fifth and eighth motions in limine, filed at Docket Nos. 735-13 and 738-13, because the document contained an excerpt of source code. - The declaration of Adam Kaufmann filed in opposition to Syntel’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur, filed at Docket Nos. 964-7 and 964-8, because it included information about Syntel’s clients and finances.

The court also granted TriZetto’s request concerning Syntel’s first motion in limine, filed at Docket No. 729-1, because the document included information about TriZetto’s and Cognizant’s finances, costs, and business relationships.

The court ordered the parties to file the documents in redacted form on the public docket by June 25, 2021.