Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 13, 2023

loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:22-cv-05971
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In loanDepot.com v. CrossCountry Mortgage, Judge Cave granted CrossCountry’s motion to seal redacted borrower information and ordered related filings unsealed.

Who this affects

CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, loanDepot.com, LLC, the non-party borrowers and prospective borrowers whose names appeared in the exhibit, and members of the public seeking access to the filings.

What happened

In loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, CrossCountry asked to seal redacted portions of an exhibit supporting its response to loanDepot’s request for a conference about discovery disputes.

The exhibit contained first and/or last names of non-party borrowers or prospective borrowers that had been used as discovery search terms. CrossCountry argued that these individuals’ privacy interests supported keeping the information from public view.

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the letter-motion. She directed the Clerk to seal ECF No. 270-1 for viewing only by selected parties, make ECF Nos. 270 and 270-2 through 270-3 public, and close ECF No. 266.

The detailed version

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

Case
loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05971
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Mar. 13, 2023

Background

CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC asked for permission to file redacted portions of Exhibit A under seal. The exhibit supported CrossCountry’s response to loanDepot.com, LLC’s request for a pre-motion conference concerning discovery disputes.

CrossCountry stated that Exhibit A contained the first and/or last names of non-party borrowers or prospective borrowers used as search terms during discovery. It argued that these individuals’ privacy interests favored keeping the information redacted and under seal.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized a general presumption that judicial documents are available to the public. It treated Exhibit A as a judicial document because it had been filed in support of the pre-motion letter. The court then considered the privacy interests of non-party individuals whose information was not necessary to decide the discovery-related matter.

Ruling

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted CrossCountry’s letter-motion seeking to file the redacted portions of Exhibit A under seal. The Clerk was directed to seal ECF No. 270-1, which would remain visible only to selected parties; unseal ECF Nos. 270 and 270-2 through 270-3, making them viewable to the public; and close ECF No. 266.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.