Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-07541
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Cengage’s request to restrict unredacted court documents while keeping redacted versions public.
Cengage Learning, Inc., the plaintiffs, the court, and members of the public seeking access to the court documents.
What happened
In Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Cengage asked to redact parts of the Court’s opinion about excluding testimony and a report about class certification.
Cengage said the documents contained confidential business information, including non-public revenue figures and other proprietary details. The plaintiffs indicated that they did not oppose the proposed redactions.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Cengage’s request. The redacted documents will remain publicly visible, while the unredacted versions will remain visible only to the court and selected parties.
The detailed version
- Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07541
- Andrew Carter
- July 10, 2023
Background
Cengage Learning, Inc. asked the court for permission to redact selected portions of two documents: the court’s opinion and order concerning Cengage’s request to exclude Daniel F. Spulber’s testimony, and the report and recommendation concerning the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. Cengage said the documents contained confidential and proprietary business information, including specific non-public revenue figures and other details designated confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only under the parties’ protective order. The request was filed at ECF No. 265.
Cengage stated that the parties had discussed the proposed redactions and that it had removed some of them. It also stated that the plaintiffs did not oppose the remaining proposed redactions. The request identified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which allows protection for trade secrets and other confidential research, development, or commercial information upon a showing of good cause.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Cengage’s request at ECF No. 265. The redacted versions of the opinion and order and the report and recommendation, filed at ECF Nos. 265-1 and 265-2, will remain visible to the public. The unredacted versions, filed at ECF Nos. 259-60, will remain visible only to the court and selected parties. The Clerk of Court was directed to continue maintaining ECF Nos. 259-60 at that restricted viewing level and to close ECF No. 265.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.