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

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Solas Oled LTD.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-05205
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Samsung Electronics v. Solas OLED, Judge Schofield granted motions to seal confidential business information in briefing.

Who this affects

The parties in the two cases and the individuals identified in the specified appendix are affected by the order. The unredacted memoranda will remain unavailable to the general public, while redacted versions may be filed.

What happened

The order covers two cases involving Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as plaintiffs, and Solas OLED Ltd. and others as defendants. The parties asked to seal portions of their memoranda concerning a motion to dismiss or transfer.

The court stated that the public’s right to access judicial documents is not absolute. It found that filing redacted memoranda was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.

Judge Schofield granted the motions to seal. The unredacted memoranda will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals listed in the specified appendix may access them. The Clerk was directed to close the six sealing motions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Solas Oled LTD. · No. 1:21-cv-05205
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Mar. 1, 2022

Background

The order addresses sealing motions in two cases. On September 21, 2021, the defendants moved to seal portions of their memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss or transfer. On October 12, 2021, the plaintiffs moved to seal portions of their opposition memorandum. On October 22, 2021, the defendants moved to seal portions of their reply memorandum.

Reasoning

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

Ruling

The court granted the motions to seal. The unredacted versions of the memoranda will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the appendix at the specified docket entries will have access. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the sealing motions at Docket Nos. 50, 57, and 64 in Case No. 21 Civ. 5205 and Docket Nos. 19, 36, and 47 in Case No. 21 Civ. 7201.

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.