Baker v. German
- Katherine Failla
- 1:15-cv-07296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baker v. German, Judge Failla granted the plaintiff’s application to keep a memorandum sealed and file a redacted version.
Plaintiff Michael Smith-Baker and the defendants whose designated confidential information appears in the memorandum.
What happened
In Baker v. German, the plaintiff asked to keep sealed a memorandum opposing defendants’ motions in limine and to file a redacted version. The request concerned information from documents that defendants had designated as confidential under a protective order.
The plaintiff said defendants’ counsel requested sealing after the memorandum was filed. A proposed redacted version was also filed, and the original memorandum had been temporarily placed under seal.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application on July 7, 2021. The order therefore allowed the memorandum to remain sealed and permitted the plaintiff to file the redacted version.
The detailed version
- Baker v. German · No. 1:15-cv-07296
- Katherine Failla
- July 7, 2021
Background
The plaintiff, identified in the filing as Michael Smith-Baker, submitted a memorandum opposing defendants’ motions in limine. The memorandum was filed as ECF No. 139. The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the memorandum referred to information from documents that defendants had designated as “Confidential” under a confidentiality stipulation and protective order.
Defendants’ counsel asked that the memorandum be filed under seal. The plaintiff then filed a proposed redacted version as ECF No. 142 and sought permission to keep the original memorandum under seal and file the redacted version without references to the designated confidential information. The filing stated that the original memorandum had been temporarily placed under seal.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application GRANTED.” The court granted the plaintiff’s application to maintain the memorandum under seal and to file a redacted version. The order did not provide additional reasoning or specify a different disposition for either request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.