SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SS&C Technologies v. Arcesium, Judge Wang granted the parties’ application to redact and seal certain case materials.
The ruling affected SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., Advent Software, Inc., and Arcesium LLC by allowing certain litigation materials to be redacted, filed under seal, or lodged through the traditional filing process.
What happened
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. and Advent Software, Inc. sued Arcesium LLC in this case. The parties jointly asked the court to restrict public access to parts of a filing and supporting evidence.
The request covered references to nonpublic software information and testimony labeled highly confidential. It also sought to file a deposition-video compilation under seal using the court’s traditional filing process.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted the application and ordered it accordingly. The opinion does not provide a separate explanation beyond the parties’ request and the court’s approval.
The detailed version
- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02009
- Ona Wang
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to redact portions of a letter that SS&C was filing in connection with a request to seek sanctions against Arcesium. They also asked to file certain supporting exhibits under seal. The request included a video compilation of testimony from a recent deposition, which SS&C sought to lodge with the court under seal through the traditional filing process.
Parties’ Position
The parties stated that the materials contained references to nonpublic components of Arcesium’s software and testimony that Arcesium had designated “highly confidential—outside counsel and experts’ eyes only.” The request sought permission to redact parts of the letter, file an unredacted version under seal, and file exhibits under seal or through the traditional process as applicable.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The order therefore approved the requested redactions and sealed or traditional filing of the identified materials. The opinion discusses the parties’ arguments about the public-access presumption and competitive harm but does not include a separate explanation of Judge Wang’s reasoning beyond the statement “Application GRANTED.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.