Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 18, 2022

Trafelet v. Cipolla & Co. LLC.

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-04888
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

Trafelet v. Cipolla & Co. LLC: Judge Torres granted Trafelet’s request to restrict access to specified filings and require additional sealing and redactions.

Who this affects

Trafelet, Cipolla & Co., LLC, and public access to the specified court filings. The respondent must seal or redact the identified materials and review its other filings.

What happened

In Lara S. Trafelet v. Cipolla & Co., LLC, Trafelet asked the court to limit public access to documents filed by the respondent. Her letter identified sensitive information in filings and proposed sealing or redacting certain exhibits.

Trafelet requested that some documents be accessible only to the parties, that exhibits in one appendix be filed under seal, and that exhibits in another appendix be refiled with proposed redactions. She also asked the respondent to review its other filings for the same information.

The court granted the request. Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk to limit access to the listed documents, ordered the respondent to file the Appendix A exhibits under seal and the Appendix B materials in redacted form, and required the respondent to confirm by November 23, 2022, that the identified sensitive information did not appear elsewhere in its filings.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trafelet v. Cipolla & Co. LLC. · No. 1:22-cv-04888
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Nov. 18, 2022

Background

Petitioner Lara S. Trafelet, through counsel, submitted a letter motion seeking to restrict public access to additional documents filed by Respondent Cipolla & Co., LLC. The letter stated that Trafelet had reviewed the respondent’s filings and identified sensitive information. The opinion text contains redacted or otherwise incomplete passages describing some of that information.

Requested relief

Trafelet asked the court to limit access to two additional filings, require the respondent to file certain exhibits fully under seal, and require redacted versions of other exhibits and documents to be filed. She also asked that the respondent review its filings and confirm that the identified sensitive information did not appear in other filings.

Ruling

The court granted the request. The Clerk of Court was directed to change the viewing level of ECF Nos. 41, 42, 43, 45-03, 45-04, 45-07, 45-08, 45-23, 45-25, 45-26, 45-30, 45-33, 45-34, 45-35, 45-36, 45-39, 45-44, 45-45, 45-49, 45-51, 45-62, 45-68, 45-76, 45-81, 50-09, 50-10, 50-15, 50-17, 50-18, 50-19, 50-22, and 50-25 so that only the parties could access them. Judge Analisa Torres further ordered the respondent to file under seal the exhibits listed in Appendix A to Trafelet’s letter motion; file redacted versions of the materials listed in Appendix B using the proposed redactions in Exhibits A through N; and review its filings and confirm by November 23, 2022, that the identified sensitive information did not appear in any other filing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.