Chandler v. International Business Machines Corp.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-06319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chandler v. International Business Machines Corp., Judge Koeltl's text records the plaintiffs' request to seal summary-judgment materials, not a court ruling.
The plaintiffs and International Business Machines Corp.; the provided text does not show a court ruling affecting their rights.
What happened
In Chandler v. International Business Machines Corp., the plaintiffs asked permission to file their motion for summary judgment, a supporting declaration, and exhibits under seal.
The plaintiffs said the materials contain information covered by confidentiality provisions in IBM's arbitration agreements. They argued that the provisions should not be enforced and that the materials should ultimately be filed publicly, but asked for temporary sealing while IBM and the court considered the confidentiality issues.
The text is a letter from plaintiffs' attorney, not a court order, so it does not state that Judge Koeltl granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Chandler v. International Business Machines Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06319
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 8, 2021
Document and request
The document is a letter from Shannon Liss-Riordan, identified as counsel for the plaintiffs, to Judge John G. Koeltl. The letter asks permission to file under seal the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Liss-Riordan's declaration, and accompanying exhibits.
Stated reason
The letter says the documents contain information covered by the confidentiality agreement in IBM's arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment concerns whether IBM's confidentiality provision in those agreements should be enforced. The plaintiffs state that the documents should ultimately be publicly filed, citing the court's rule that a confidentiality agreement between litigants generally is not, by itself, enough to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
Requested temporary treatment and disposition
The plaintiffs ask that the documents at least initially be filed under seal until IBM has had an opportunity to respond and the court has considered the parties' arguments. The provided text does not contain a court ruling granting or denying the request, so no disposition is stated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.