loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC

Background

loanDepot.com, LLC asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for permission to file certain materials under seal or with redactions. The materials were submitted in support of loanDepot’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The request relied on the court’s sealing procedures and the stipulated protective order entered in the case.

The materials included documents marked confidential or highly confidential by CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC and individual defendants. loanDepot also identified materials containing its own confidential business information, customer identities, customer financial information, contact information, internal revenue figures, employee-performance information, and alleged trade-secret contact lists. The request covered exhibits, portions of loanDepot’s preliminary-injunction memorandum, and materials accompanying a supplemental declaration.

Arguments in the sealing request

loanDepot described the documents as judicial documents because they were submitted in support of a request for a preliminary injunction. It cited the three-step public-access analysis requiring the court to determine whether materials are judicial documents, weigh the presumption of public access, and balance that presumption against countervailing interests such as privacy and protection of confidential business information.

loanDepot argued that disclosure of internal rankings, revenue figures, and business information could disadvantage it competitively. It also argued that customer names, financial information, and contact information should be protected because of the privacy interests of customers and other nonparties.

Court’s action

The order states: “By March 24, 2023, Plaintiff shall file, on the public docket on ECF, redacted versions of all of its papers that it filed under seal in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.” The order was signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield and dated March 22, 2023.

The provided text does not expressly state that the motion for leave to file under seal was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. It does establish that the court required public redacted versions of the papers. The order addressed filing and access to documents; it did not decide the merits of loanDepot’s underlying claims or the preliminary-injunction motion.