In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:13-cv-09244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation: Judge Abrams granted the parties’ application to keep documents sealed because they contain confidential commercial information.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the attached court documents are affected. The documents remain sealed to protect confidential commercial information.
What happened
In In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation, the plaintiffs filed a reply supporting their motion to compel and attached documents that had been sealed under the case’s protective order. The defendants said the documents contained confidential commercial information.
The plaintiffs did not oppose keeping the documents sealed. The court considered the public’s presumed right to access court records and the defendants’ interest in protecting confidential commercial information.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application and ordered that the documents remain sealed because the defendants’ interest outweighed the presumption of public access.
The detailed version
- In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:13-cv-09244
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief supporting their motion to compel. The reply attached documents filed under seal because the defendants had designated them confidential under a protective order entered in the case.
The defendants asked the court to keep the documents sealed, stating that they contained confidential commercial information. The plaintiffs did not oppose that request.
Ruling
The court granted the application to maintain the documents under seal. Applying the public-access standard discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., the court found that the defendants’ interest in protecting confidential commercial information outweighed the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible.
Effect
The attached documents remain sealed. The order addressed access to those documents and did not decide the parties’ underlying motion to compel or the merits of the antitrust litigation.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.