Accenture LLP v. Trautman
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-02409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Accenture v. Trautman, Judge Liman approved some redactions, required others removed, and ordered public filings.
Accenture LLP and Stephanie Neal Trautman, whose documents and transcript excerpts were subject to the court’s redaction and public-filing instructions.
What happened
Accenture LLP v. Trautman concerned the parties’ requests to remove confidentiality designations from some documents and keep other material hidden from public view.
Judge Liman approved many proposed redactions but required specific pages, headings, subheadings, and other information to be disclosed. The order also permitted limited redactions in two transcript sections.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to file public versions of the documents by June 25, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., using only the redactions allowed by the court.
The detailed version
- Accenture LLP v. Trautman · No. 1:21-cv-02409
- Lewis Liman
- June 21, 2021
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions about removing confidentiality designations from certain documents and keeping other material under seal. It applied the standards used in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including those described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Rulings on the Documents
The court ordered the following:
- For Dkt. No. 72-39, the proposed redactions were approved except for ACCENTURE-0013672-0013675, which must not be redacted. - For Dkt. No. 72-40, the proposed redactions were approved except for ACCENTURE-0013821-0013822 and 0013828, which must not be redacted. - The proposed redactions for Dkt. Nos. 65-1, 65-2, and 72-32 were approved. - For Dkt. No. 64-5, the proposed redactions were approved except that specified sub-headings on ACCENTURE-0020677 and ACCENTURE-0020678, and the headings “Anticipate,” “Neutralize,” and “Differentiate” on ACCENTURE-0020682, must not be redacted. - For Dkt. No. 64-2, the proposed redactions were approved except that specified subheadings on ACCENTURE-0000630 and ACCENTURE-0000633 must not be redacted. - The proposed redactions for Dkt. No. 65-3 were approved. - For Dkt. No. 64-4, the proposed redactions were approved except for ACCENTURE-0001426, which must not be redacted. - For Dkt. No. 64-3, the specified pages—ACCENTURE-0001092-0001093, ACCENTURE-0001107, 0001119, 0001132, 0001134, and 0001165—must not be redacted. - For Dkt. No. 72-41, only the client’s name could be redacted at pages 57:5-58:3; at pages 62:10-63:23, only pages 63:4-21 could be redacted. - For Dkt. No. 72-42, the proposed redactions were approved except for pages 26:19-27:1, which must not be redacted.
Result
Judge Lewis J. Liman further ordered the parties to file public versions of the documents covered by this order and the court’s earlier order at Dkt. No. 89 by June 25, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. The public versions must contain only the redactions permitted by the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.