Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Aug. 1, 2022

In Re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A.

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:22-cv-05660
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureBankruptcy
In one sentence

In Re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A. contains a request to file appendix materials in redacted form; Judge Cote’s ruling is not included.

Who this affects

LATAM Airlines Group S.A. and its affiliated debtors and debtors-in-possession, whose supplemental appendix contains information they seek to keep confidential; the effect on the opposing party and the public is not resolved in the provided text.

What happened

In Re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A. concerns a request by LATAM Airlines Group S.A. and affiliated debtors to file a supplemental appendix in redacted form in an appeal.

The appendix contains information designated confidential or highly confidential under a bankruptcy-court protective order, including sensitive commercial, business, financial, and personal information. The requesting parties said disclosure could cause competitive harm.

The provided text is a letter to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a ruling. It does not show whether Judge Cote granted or denied the request.

The detailed version

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

Case
In Re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A. · No. 1:22-cv-05660
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Aug. 1, 2022

Nature of the Document

The provided text is a July 29, 2022 letter from counsel for LATAM Airlines Group S.A. and its affiliated debtors and debtors-in-possession. It asks the court for permission to file a supplemental appendix in redacted form. The text does not include a judicial opinion or order deciding that request.

Background

The supplemental appendix was prepared for an appeal and contains information from an earlier bankruptcy-court record. That information had either been filed under seal or designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under a stipulated protective order. The protective order covered nonpublic proprietary or confidential technical, business, financial, and personal information. It treated material as highly confidential when disclosure could create a risk of competitive injury, including trade secrets and sensitive financial or business information.

Parties’ Request and Position

The appellees said they had tried to keep confidential information out of their opposition brief but believed some of the information in the supplemental appendix was important to the court’s consideration of the issues. They argued that protecting confidential commercial terms, business operations, and business and financial transactions outweighed the general presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. They stated that a full, unredacted version of the appendix had been filed under seal.

Disposition

The text does not state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the request. No disposition is shown.

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.