Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2022

Samsung Display Co. LTD. v. Solas Oled LTD.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-07201
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Samsung Display v. Solas OLED, Judge Schofield granted motions to seal confidential business information in the parties’ filings.

Who this affects

The parties to the two proceedings and the individuals identified in the referenced appendix may access the unredacted memoranda; the public will not have access to those versions.

What happened

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Solas OLED Ltd. concerned motions about whether parts of legal briefs should remain private while the parties litigated a motion to dismiss or transfer.

The defendants moved to seal parts of their supporting brief, the plaintiffs moved to seal parts of their opposing brief, and the defendants then moved to seal parts of their reply. The order’s caption lists proceedings under docket numbers 21 Civ. 5205 and 21 Civ. 7201.

Judge Schofield granted the motions to seal. The unredacted briefs will remain sealed, and access is limited to the parties and the individuals identified in an appendix; the Clerk was directed to close the motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Samsung Display Co. LTD. v. Solas Oled LTD. · No. 1:21-cv-07201
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Mar. 1, 2022

Background

The order’s caption lists two proceedings: 21 Civ. 5205 and 21 Civ. 7201. In the 21 Civ. 7201 proceeding, the defendants filed a motion on September 21, 2021, seeking to seal portions of their memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss or transfer. The plaintiffs filed a motion on October 12, 2021, seeking to seal portions of their memorandum opposing dismissal or transfer. The defendants filed another motion on October 22, 2021, seeking to seal portions of their reply.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized a common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents, but explained that this right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing considerations. The court found that filing the referenced memoranda in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.

Ruling

The motions to seal were granted. The unredacted versions of the memoranda will remain sealed, and only the parties and the individuals identified in the appendix at the specified docket entries will have access. Judge Lorna G. Schofield also directed the Clerk of Court to close the sealing motions listed in both proceedings. The order did not decide the underlying motions to dismiss or transfer.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.