Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. AMCK Aviation Holdings Ireland Limited
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-09713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frontier Airlines v. AMCK Aviation, Judge Stanton received defendants’ request to file confidential summary-judgment materials under seal; the filing contains no ruling.
Frontier Airlines, Inc. and the defendants in the case, whose confidential or highly confidential materials were discussed in connection with defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. AMCK Aviation Holdings Ireland Limited concerns defendants’ request to file certain materials under seal while seeking summary judgment.
The defendants’ November 11, 2022 letter said the materials included documents Frontier had labeled confidential or highly confidential, along with summaries of those documents. They filed public redacted versions and unredacted versions under seal under a protective order.
Judge Louis L. Stanton’s filing contains no ruling on the request. It records the defendants’ position that they would not oppose a sealing application by Frontier, but it does not state that the court granted or denied sealing.
The detailed version
- Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. AMCK Aviation Holdings Ireland Limited · No. 1:20-cv-09713
- Louis Stanton
- Dec. 8, 2022
Nature of the filing
This document is a letter from defendants’ counsel to Judge Louis L. Stanton requesting permission to file certain papers under seal in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It is not a court opinion or order and does not announce a ruling.
Materials at issue
The letter states that defendants’ summary-judgment motion referred to documents that Frontier Airlines, Inc. had designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under a stipulated protective order dated January 4, 2022. The listed materials included Exhibit 7 to the November 10, 2022 declaration of Paul Sheridan; Exhibits 1–19 and 22–26 to the November 11, 2022 declaration of Jeff E. Butler; and summaries of those materials in defendants’ memorandum of law and statement of material facts under Local Civil Rule 56.1.
Defendants said they were filing public redacted versions and unredacted versions under seal as required by the protective order. They took no position on whether the documents met the legal standard of a “most compelling reason” for sealing. The letter stated that, if Frontier wished to keep the information sealed, defendants would not oppose Frontier’s application.
Disposition
The document does not state that the court granted or denied permission to seal, and it does not resolve defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton’s ruling on either issue is therefore not provided in this text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.