Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-02190
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Judge Cave denied SS&C’s sealing request without prejudice because it did not overcome the presumption of public access.
SS&C Technologies, Inc., Michael Nguyen, and the other parties affected by access to the deposition transcript and related court filings.
What happened
In Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., SS&C asked to keep all of Michael Nguyen’s deposition transcript and parts of its opposition to his motion to quash under seal.
SS&C argued that the materials contained information the parties might designate as confidential. The court said SS&C had not overcome the presumption that documents filed in court should be publicly accessible.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the request without prejudice. A party may renew the request by January 25, 2023, with proposed redactions; otherwise, the documents will be unsealed, although they would remain visible only to selected parties in the meantime.
The detailed version
- Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02190
- John Cronan
- Jan. 18, 2023
Background
SS&C Technologies, Inc. asked the court to seal the entire deposition transcript of Plaintiff Michael Nguyen and the portions of SS&C’s opposition to Nguyen’s motion to quash that referred to the transcript. SS&C based the request on the possibility that the transcript and opposition contained information the parties could designate as confidential.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that documents filed on the docket carry a presumption of public access. It concluded that SS&C had not rebutted that presumption. The court also cited the principle that an agreement between parties to keep information confidential does not, by itself, overcome the public’s right to access judicial documents.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied SS&C’s request without prejudice to renewal on a proper showing that particular portions of the transcript and references to those portions should remain confidential. Any party seeking to renew the request had to do so by January 25, 2023, and include proposed redactions to the transcript. The documents identified in the order as ECF Nos. 71 and 72 were to remain visible only to selected parties temporarily. If no party renewed the request, those documents would be unsealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.