Flynn v. McGraw Hill LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-00614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flynn v. McGraw Hill LLC, Judge Schofield granted McGraw Hill’s motion to seal documents containing confidential business information.
McGraw Hill LLC and McGraw Hill Education, Inc., whose confidential business information remains protected from public disclosure, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In Flynn v. McGraw Hill LLC, McGraw Hill LLC and McGraw Hill Education, Inc. asked to keep certain exhibits and parts of legal briefs sealed or redacted. The materials were filed in connection with the plaintiffs’ request to file a second amended complaint.
The court said public access to court documents is important but not absolute. It found that the materials contained competitively sensitive information about McGraw Hill’s strategy, internal discussions, and business operations, and that most of the information was not used to decide the motion.
Judge Schofield granted the renewed motion to seal. The documents at Docket No. 125 and their attachments will remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and the individuals identified in McGraw Hill’s filing. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 124.
The detailed version
- Flynn v. McGraw Hill LLC · No. 1:21-cv-00614
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
McGraw Hill LLC and McGraw Hill Education, Inc. filed a renewed motion seeking permission to keep certain exhibits and redacted portions of briefs under seal. Those materials were submitted in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that the public has a strong common-law right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. Here, the documents contained confidential, competitively sensitive information concerning McGraw Hill’s strategic priorities, internal deliberations about alternatives, and operational processes used to carry out strategic decisions. The court also noted that most of the information was not relied on in deciding the motion and therefore was subject to a weaker presumption of public access. The potential harm to McGraw Hill from disclosure to competitors outweighed the presumption of access.
Ruling
The court granted the renewed motion to seal. The documents filed at Docket No. 125 and their attachments will remain sealed, and access will be limited to the parties and the individuals identified in the appendix to McGraw Hill’s letter motion at Docket No. 124. Judge Schofield also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 124.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.