Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, L.P.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-04915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, Judge Torres granted plaintiffs’ motion to partially seal three exhibits containing confidential business information.
The plaintiffs’ request to restrict public access to portions of three exhibits was granted; the defendants did not object, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.
What happened
In Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, the plaintiffs asked to partially seal three exhibits filed in connection with their request for a preliminary injunction. The exhibits included nonpublic board materials and information about business strategy, management, potential merger candidates, compliance matters, and financial performance.
The plaintiffs proposed limited redactions while leaving public the portions used in the parties’ written arguments. The defendants did not object. The court had previously denied a broader request to seal fifteen documents but allowed the plaintiffs to propose narrower redactions.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the proposed redactions were limited and protected confidential business information that did not affect the dispute. The court granted the motion to seal the three exhibits and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Saba Capital Management, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-04915
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs, Charles B. Johnson, as trustee of the Johnson Family Trust, and Templeton Global Income Fund, sought permission to partially seal three exhibits filed in the parties’ papers concerning the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The exhibits were exhibit 68 to Scott D. Musoff’s supporting declaration, exhibit 69 to Musoff’s supplemental declaration, and exhibit 17 to Michael E. Swartz’s declaration supporting the defendants’ opposition.
The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ request to seal fifteen documents but permitted them to propose narrowly tailored redactions and explain why each redaction was justified. The plaintiffs then argued that the three exhibits contained confidential, nonpublic information about their business strategy and management. They proposed redacting information concerning potential merger candidates, compliance matters, potential policies and procedures, and internal analyses of financial performance. The defendants did not object to the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown that sealing was warranted. It found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored, protected confidential business information, and did not bear on the parties’ dispute.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal the three exhibits. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 99. The order was signed by Judge Analisa Torres on December 12, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.