Moussaoui v. Bank of Beirut and The Arab Countries
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-06137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Moussaoui v. Bank of Beirut, Judge Ramos ordered that the case could be filed under seal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d).
The parties, the Clerk of Court, and members of the public seeking access to the case filing or order.
What happened
Moussaoui v. Bank of Beirut and The Arab Countries concerns an application to keep the case filing under seal, which limits public access to the case documents.
After reviewing the application, the court found sufficient cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d). It directed the parties to follow the court’s procedures for sealed filings and submit the case-initiating documents to the Clerk in paper form.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the case may be filed under seal. The Clerk was also directed to limit access to the order to the selected party viewing level until the court issues another order.
The detailed version
- Moussaoui v. Bank of Beirut and The Arab Countries · No. 1:22-cv-06137
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 16, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns an application to file the case under seal. Filing under seal restricts public access to case documents. The opinion does not identify the applicant or explain the underlying dispute.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the application and found sufficient cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) to permit sealed filing. The order directs the parties to follow the sealed-filing instructions in the court’s Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, Rule 6.14. It also requires the parties to present the case-initiating documents to the Clerk in paper form.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the case may be filed under seal. The Clerk was directed to restrict access to the order to the selected party viewing level until further order of the court. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were decided.
Effect
The order restricts public access to the case filing and, temporarily, to the order itself. It does not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.