Taboola, Inc. v. Ezoic Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:17-cv-09909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Taboola v. Ezoic, Judge Engelmayer denied overbroad sealing requests and ordered less-redacted or unredacted filings.
Taboola, Inc., Ezoic Inc., Dwayne Lafleur, their counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
In Taboola, Inc. v. Ezoic Inc., counsel asked to redact substantial portions of filings related to pending summary-judgment motions. The court found the sealing requests extremely overbroad.
The court denied the requests and directed counsel to either publicly file the materials without redactions or propose much narrower redactions by 5 p.m. on July 2, 2021. The order explained that sealing must be limited and supported by findings showing it is necessary to protect higher values.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the order on July 1, 2021. The order addressed access to court filings and did not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Taboola, Inc. v. Ezoic Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09909
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 1, 2021
Background
Counsel requested permission to redact substantial portions of filings concerning pending motions for summary judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the arguments on those motions.
Ruling
The court denied the parties’ sealing requests as extremely overbroad. Sealing is the process of restricting public access to court filings. The court cited the public’s and press’s qualified First Amendment right to access certain judicial documents, and stated that sealing is proper only when supported by findings showing that closure is essential to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
The court directed counsel, by 5 p.m. on Friday, July 2, 2021, either to publicly file all of the materials without redactions or to propose substantially narrower redactions consistent with the limited purposes for which sealing is proper. The order did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.