Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-11711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Fishon v. Peloton: Judge Liman partly granted and partly denied three sealing motions and denied a fourth, requiring narrower redactions.
The parties, their sealed filings and deposition materials, and public access to the case docket were affected.
What happened
In Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., the court considered four requests to keep documents and deposition materials from public view.
The court granted three motions in part and denied them in part, allowed specific redactions, and denied the remaining redaction requests. It denied the fourth motion. It also denied requests to seal certain documents and depositions entirely because the proposed sealing was too broad.
Judge Liman gave the parties 14 days to propose narrower redactions. Without a renewed motion, the court said the Clerk would unseal documents and deposition transcripts filed entirely under seal on or after January 28, 2022.
The detailed version
- Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11711
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
The court addressed four motions to seal documents filed in connection with the case. The documents included materials related to a motion for class certification and a motion to exclude expert testimony. The opinion refers to the motions by docket numbers 116, 131, 149, and 160.
Rulings on Proposed Redactions
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions at Docket Numbers 116, 131, and 149. It permitted specified redactions in documents at Docket Numbers 119, 136, and 151. The court denied the requests for the remaining proposed redactions in Docket Numbers 119, 130, 136, 137, 141, 143, 151, 153, 155, and 162.
The court directed the parties to file the documents on the public docket with only the approved redactions by January 28, 2022. The motion at Docket Number 160 was denied.
Requests to Seal Entire Documents
The motions also sought to keep certain documents and deposition transcripts under seal in their entirety. The court denied those requests as presented, explaining that complete sealing was inconsistent with the requirement that sealing be narrowly tailored under Lugosch v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga.
The court suspended the effect of that denial for 14 days so the parties could propose narrower redactions. Those proposals were to account for the redactions allowed by the order and by Lugosch. If the parties did not file a renewed motion seeking narrower redactions, the court said it would direct the Clerk to unseal documents and deposition transcripts filed entirely under seal on or after January 28, 2022.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions at Docket Numbers 116, 131, and 149, denied the motion at Docket Number 160, and issued filing and potential unsealing directions as described above. The order was signed by Lewis J. Liman on January 21, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.