Toretto v. Donnelley Financial Solutions, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-02667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Toretto v. Donnelley Financial Solutions, Judge Woods granted the motion to seal settlement Exhibit A because disclosure could create security and commercial risks.
The ruling affects the parties’ ability to keep Exhibit A to their settlement agreement from public access, the public’s access to that document, and Mediant Communications, Inc.’s asserted security and commercial interests.
What happened
In Toretto v. Donnelley Financial Solutions, the parties asked the court to seal Exhibit A to their settlement agreement, which was filed with the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement. The exhibit described Mediant’s existing and planned business, security-system, and security-practice improvements.
The court explained that documents filed in connection with a court decision generally are presumed open to the public. It found that Exhibit A was such a document, but that the presumption of access was modest because the security commitments were intended to prevent possible future breaches rather than provide compensation for past injuries. The parties said the exhibit contained confidential, commercially sensitive information and that disclosure could provide a roadmap for unauthorized access to Mediant’s network.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the motion to seal, finding that disclosure could create security or commercial harm and that the request was narrowly limited to Exhibit A. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion on the court’s docket.
The detailed version
- Toretto v. Donnelley Financial Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02667
- Gregory Woods
- June 24, 2022
Background
The parties moved to seal Exhibit A of their settlement agreement. The exhibit was also filed as Exhibit 1 to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement. According to the opinion, Exhibit A described business-practice commitments and improvements to security systems and practices that were already in place or that Mediant Communications, Inc. would implement under the settlement agreement.
The court noted that it had granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the class-action settlement in a separate order entered the same day.
Legal standard
The court applied the common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. A judicial document is a document filed with the court that is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court explained that it must determine whether the document is a judicial document, assess the strength of the public-access presumption, identify legitimate reasons against disclosure, and balance those considerations.
Ruling
The court held that Exhibit A was a judicial document because it was filed with the motion for preliminary approval of the class-action settlement. But it found that the public-access presumption was modest because the security commitments were preventive measures aimed at guarding against possible future breaches, rather than measures providing redress for the injuries asserted by class members.
The parties represented that Exhibit A contained nonpublic, confidential, and commercially sensitive information. They also argued that making details about Mediant’s operating systems and protections public could provide a roadmap to someone seeking unauthorized access to Mediant’s network. The court concluded that disclosure could create a security risk or commercial harm and that the request was narrowly tailored to a limited portion of the settlement agreement.
The court granted the motion to seal. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 144.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.