GSC Logistics, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-05368
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GSC Logistics v. Amazon, Judge Clarke temporarily sealed the complaint and required the parties to address proposed redactions.
GSC Logistics, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc.; the Complaint and related letters were restricted from public viewing pending further order.
What happened
In GSC Logistics, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, the defendants asked the court to remove the unredacted complaint from the docket and require a redacted version.
The court directed the Clerk to seal the complaint and the defendants’ request while the parties discussed which information should be redacted. The court emphasized the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
Judge Clarke ordered the parties to meet and confer, then file a joint letter if they agreed on redactions or separate letters if they did not. The complaint remained sealed pending further order, with viewing restricted to the parties identified in the order.
The detailed version
- GSC Logistics, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05368
- Clarke
- June 29, 2023
Background
Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Logistics, Inc. asked the court to remove the unredacted Complaint from the docket and direct Plaintiff GSC Logistics, Inc. to file a redacted version.
Court’s Order
The court directed the Clerk to seal the Complaint, docket entries 1 and 7, pending further order. It also ordered Defendants to file their June 28 letter under seal. The court restricted viewing of the Complaint to GSC Logistics, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc.
The parties were ordered to meet and confer by July 6, 2023, about the requested redactions, considering the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. If they agreed on redactions consistent with that standard, they were to file a joint letter and proposed order by July 10. If they disagreed, Plaintiff was to file a letter explaining its position by July 10, and Defendants would have one week to reply. Those letters were also to be filed under seal pending resolution of the request.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the Complaint sealed pending further order and set procedures for the parties to address the proposed redactions. The order did not decide which specific redactions were ultimately permitted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.