Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Credit Acceptance Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-00038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, Judge Furman granted Credit Acceptance’s request to redact sensitive nonparty information from a filed exhibit.
Credit Acceptance Corporation may file the exhibit with the approved redactions. The redactions protect sensitive information concerning the nonparty consumer and the nonparty automobile dealer’s sales agent, while limiting public access to that information.
What happened
In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, Credit Acceptance asked to redact limited personal information from an exhibit supporting its motion to dismiss. The exhibit was a motor-vehicle installment contract involving a nonparty consumer and automobile dealer.
The requested redactions covered the consumer’s name except for the first letter of the last name, phone number, vehicle identification number except for its last four digits, and the dealer’s sales agent’s name. The consumer and dealer were not parties to the case, and the plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
Judge Furman granted the request. The court concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect recognized privacy interests, which outweighed the public’s presumptive right to access the information, and directed the Clerk to terminate the letter-motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Credit Acceptance Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-00038
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
Credit Acceptance Corporation asked for permission to file a redacted version of Exhibit A to the March 14, 2023 Declaration of Patrick G. Rideout. The exhibit was a motor-vehicle retail installment contract and related agreements involving a nonparty consumer identified as “Ms. B.” and a nonparty automobile dealer. The exhibit was incorporated by reference in and described as integral to the complaint. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
Requested Redactions
Credit Acceptance sought to redact narrow categories of sensitive personal information: Ms. B.’s name except for the first letter of her last name; her telephone number; the vehicle identification number except for its last four digits; and the automobile dealer’s sales agent’s name. Credit Acceptance also stated that it would redact information covered by applicable federal and court privacy rules.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized a general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It explained, however, that courts may allow redactions when they are narrowly tailored and necessary to protect a higher value, including the privacy interests of innocent third parties. The court also relied on the fact that the information had no bearing on the court’s treatment of Credit Acceptance’s motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The defendant’s letter-motion to seal Exhibit A to the March 14, 2023 Declaration of Patrick G. Rideout was GRANTED. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to preserve recognized privacy interests and that those interests outweighed the public’s presumption of access. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 33.
Scope of the Decision
The opinion text provided addresses the sealing and redaction request. It does not decide Credit Acceptance’s motion to dismiss or the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.