Kassman v. KPMG LLP
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:11-cv-03743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kassman v. KPMG LLP, Judge Schofield granted KPMG’s motion to seal an exhibit to protect personal information and limited access to listed people.
KPMG LLP, the parties, the individuals identified in the appendix, and pro se plaintiff Anne Macedonio.
What happened
In Kassman v. KPMG LLP, KPMG asked the court to redact and seal an unredacted exhibit attached to a pre-motion letter.
The court said public access to court documents is not absolute and that filing the exhibit in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of personal information. The sealed version would be available only to the parties and people listed in an appendix.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted KPMG’s motion to seal. She also ordered KPMG to serve the order on pro se plaintiff Anne Macedonio by June 17, 2021, and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Kassman v. KPMG LLP · No. 1:11-cv-03743
- Lorna Schofield
- June 14, 2021
What the order addressed
KPMG LLP moved to redact and file under seal the unredacted version of Exhibit A to its June 11, 2021, pre-motion letter. The motion was filed at Docket No. 989, and the unredacted exhibit was filed at Docket No. 991.
Court’s reasoning
The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial documents but explained that the right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. The court found that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of personal information.
Ruling and other directions
The court granted KPMG’s motion to seal. The unredacted version of Exhibit A would remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix would have access. The court also ordered KPMG to serve a copy of the order on pro se plaintiff Anne Macedonio by June 17, 2021. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 989.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.