SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-04733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., Judge Hellerstein granted Defendants’ request to file a redacted settlement agreement under seal.
The ruling affected the defendants’ ability to file a redacted settlement agreement and limited public access to the information covered by the redactions.
What happened
In SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., Defendants asked to file a redacted version of a settlement agreement as an exhibit supporting their motion to dismiss.
Defendants said the agreement was confidential and contained proprietary business and financial information whose public disclosure could cause competitive harm. They also acknowledged the public’s general interest in access to court records.
Judge Hellerstein granted the request to file the redacted exhibit under seal. The text does not provide additional reasoning beyond the court’s order granting the request.
The detailed version
- SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-04733
- Cathy Seibel
- June 27, 2022
Background
Woodway USA, Inc. and Douglas Bayerlein, identified as the defendants, asked the court to allow a redacted version of Exhibit A to the declaration supporting their motion to dismiss SpeedFit LLC and other plaintiffs’ verified complaint. The exhibit was a settlement agreement between the parties and was the subject of the lawsuit.
Request to Seal
The defendants stated that the settlement agreement was marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” They sought to redact terms that they said required confidentiality, including proprietary business information and confidential financial information. They argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm. The request discussed the general presumption that court documents are accessible to the public and circumstances in which privacy or other countervailing interests may justify sealing information.
Ruling
The court granted the request. The order therefore permitted the defendants to file the redacted version of the exhibit under seal. The opinion text does not state that the court separately analyzed each proposed redaction or provide further reasoning for the ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.