loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-05971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In loanDepot.com v. CrossCountry Mortgage, Judge Schofield granted CrossCountry’s request to keep customer information sealed.
The order affects loanDepot.com, LLC, CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, the individual defendants, their counsel, and non-party customers and prospective customers whose identifying and mortgage-related information appears in the documents.
What happened
In loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, CrossCountry asked to keep exhibits and parts of a brief under seal because they contained names, contact information, addresses, and mortgage-loan details of non-party customers and prospective customers.
The court recognized a public-access right for court records but explained that the right is not absolute. It found that the customer information was not material to the issues currently before the court and that the affected non-parties’ privacy interests outweighed public access at that stage.
Judge Schofield granted the application. The listed documents remained sealed, with access limited to the parties, specified individuals, and counsel of record; the Clerk could lift restrictions on two other docket entries, and the Clerk was directed to close the sealing motion.
The detailed version
- loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05971
- Lorna Schofield
- May 24, 2023
Background
CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC asked the court for permission to file under seal certain exhibits and portions of its supplemental opposition to loanDepot.com, LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The materials included deposition excerpts and documents designated confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order. CrossCountry also sought to keep sealed documents containing customer and prospective-customer names, personal contact information, addresses, loan numbers, loan-status information, information about prior mortgage loans, assigned loan officers, employment-verification information, and compensation information.
The documents were filed in support of the supplemental preliminary-injunction opposition. The order states that the parties’ protective order allowed confidentiality designations for certain personal, financial, commercial, employee, customer, and prospective-customer information. CrossCountry asked that specified documents remain sealed or be redacted in full. It did not request continued sealing for certain other exhibits.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that presumption is not absolute. Courts must weigh competing considerations, including the privacy interests of people resisting disclosure. Here, the court found that filing the documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent disclosure of non-party customers’ names and details about their prospective mortgage loans.
The court further found that the names of the individuals and the specific files concerning them were not material to any issue then before the court. Because the information concerned non-parties to the litigation and was not necessary to decide the pending preliminary-injunction motion, the court concluded that the non-parties’ privacy interests outweighed the public’s right of access at that stage.
Ruling
The application was granted. Documents filed at Dkt. Nos. 361, 362-1, 362-2, 362-3, 362-5, 362-6, 362-7, 362-8, 362-9, 362-10, 362-11, 362-12, 362-13, and 362-15 were to remain sealed. Access was limited to the parties, the individuals identified in the appendix, and other counsel of record. Because no request was made to keep Dkt. Nos. 362-4 and 362-14 sealed, the Clerk of Court could lift the restrictions on those entries. Judge Lorna G. Schofield also directed the Clerk to close the motion at Dkt. No. 360.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.