StoneX Group Inc. v. shipman
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-00613
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In StoneX Group v. Shipman, Judge Figueredo declined to strike a defendant’s letter but allowed limited redactions and kept the original under seal.
The plaintiffs and defendant were affected by the instructions for limited redactions and filing. The original letter remained unavailable on the public docket, while a redacted version was to be filed publicly.
What happened
In STONEX GROUP, INC. v. HOWARD SHIPMAN, the plaintiffs asked the court to strike the defendant’s letter under a federal rule that permits courts to remove improper material from pleadings.
The court explained that this rule applies only to pleadings such as complaints, answers, and counterclaims—not letters or other motion papers. The plaintiffs also sought redactions, but the court found their proposed redactions too broad and unsupported; the plaintiffs acknowledged that the text did not reveal trade secrets.
The court allowed only minimal redactions for text that might involve sensitive business information, directed the plaintiffs to coordinate with the defendant and file a redacted letter, and ordered the original letter kept under seal. The opinion was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.
The detailed version
- StoneX Group Inc. v. shipman · No. 1:23-cv-00613
- John Koeltl
- June 28, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to strike the defendant’s letter at ECF No. 95 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). They also sought redactions to parts of the defendant’s June 1 letter.
Request to Strike
The court explained that Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike pleadings only. Pleadings include complaints, answers, crossclaims, and counterclaims. A letter is not a pleading, so the rule did not provide a basis for striking the letter.
Proposed Redactions
The court found that the plaintiffs had not made the required showing to justify their proposed redactions. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the text they wanted to redact did not disclose trade secrets. The court also stated that the proposed text did not appear to predominantly concern sensitive commercial or financial information.
The court further explained that the public-access right applies to “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The proposed redactions were too broad. In addition, the material was not relevant to the defendant’s request to stay the case and had not been considered when the court denied that stay request on June 5, 2023.
Disposition
The court nevertheless permitted certain minimal redactions to text that might touch on sensitive business information. It directed the court to email the letter to the plaintiffs with the potentially redactable portions highlighted. The plaintiffs were directed to share that version with the defendant and upload a redacted version to the public docket. The Clerk of Court was directed to keep the original letter under seal.
The opinion does not state the request to strike’s disposition using an express “granted” or “denied” formula; it explains that Rule 12(f) applies only to pleadings and does not authorize striking this letter. The ruling was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.