Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gorman
- Victor Marrero
- 1:21-cv-00870
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gorman, Judge Marrero allowed redactions protecting non-parties’ personal information in filed exhibits.
The ruling affects Defendant John Gorman, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and non-parties whose personal identifying information appears in the exhibits.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gorman, Defendant John Gorman asked to keep certain information redacted from exhibits filed with his motion to dismiss two counts of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s complaint.
The redacted information included non-parties’ names, email addresses, and phone numbers. Gorman argued that the information was irrelevant to the documents’ meaning, that the non-parties’ privacy interests outweighed the public’s limited interest in disclosure, and that unredacted versions had already been provided to the Commission.
Judge Victor Marrero granted the request. The court allowed the redactions to remain and ordered that the unredacted versions stay under seal.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gorman · No. 1:21-cv-00870
- Victor Marrero
- Oct. 4, 2022
Request
Defendant John Gorman sought permission to maintain redactions of non-party personal identifying information in exhibits filed with his motion to dismiss two counts of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s complaint. The redacted information included names, email addresses, and telephone numbers.
Gorman’s counsel stated that the exhibits were integral to the complaint and could be considered on a motion to dismiss. Counsel argued that the non-parties’ names and contact information were irrelevant to the documents’ meaning, that unredacted versions had been produced to the Commission at least three years earlier, and that there was no discernible public interest in disclosing the information.
Court’s Ruling
The court granted the request to maintain redactions of non-party personal identifying information from the exhibits filed with the motion to dismiss. The court also ordered that the unredacted versions remain under seal. The order addressed the filing redactions and sealing request; it did not decide the motion to dismiss the two counts.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.