Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 28, 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 request to seal redacted borrower information in a discovery exhibit.

Who this affects

CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC and non-party borrowers or prospective borrowers whose names appeared in the exhibit; the public could view the documents that the order directed to be unsealed.

What happened

In loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, CrossCountry asked to seal redacted parts of an exhibit filed with a letter about discovery disputes. The exhibit included the first and/or last names of non-party borrowers or prospective borrowers used as proposed search terms.

CrossCountry argued that these individuals’ privacy interests supported keeping the information from public view because their identities were not needed to decide the discovery dispute. The letter also acknowledged that court records generally have a presumption of public access.

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted CrossCountry’s request. The Clerk was directed to seal ECF No. 313-1, make ECF Nos. 313 and 313-2 through 313-3 public, and close ECF No. 312.

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. 28, 2023

Background

Defendant CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC filed a letter-motion asking for permission to place redacted portions of Exhibit A under seal. Exhibit A was attached to a filing concerning discovery disputes.

The motion stated that Exhibit A was a judicial document because it was filed in support of the discovery-dispute submission. Judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access. CrossCountry argued that sealing was warranted because the exhibit contained the first and/or last names of non-party borrowers or prospective borrowers that had been used as proposed discovery search terms. According to the motion, those individuals’ privacy interests outweighed public access because their identities were not necessary to resolve the discovery dispute.

Ruling

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted CrossCountry’s letter-motion to file the redacted portions of Exhibit A under seal. The order directed the Clerk to seal ECF No. 313-1, which would remain visible only to selected parties; unseal ECF No. 313 and ECF Nos. 313-2 through 313-3, making them publicly viewable; and close ECF No. 312.

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.