Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Serifos Maritime v. Glencore Singapore, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice a request to seal an ISO standard and allowed renewal.
Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd.’s request to seal the ISO 8217:2017 standard, and the public’s access to the related judicial documents.
What happened
In Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd., the defendant asked the court to keep the ISO 8217:2017 standard under seal while it filed a motion to dismiss. The defendant said the standard’s cover page prohibited reproduction or internet posting.
The defendant proposed filing a complete version for viewing by the lawyers and court, while publicly filing a version that replaced the standard with a placeholder. It argued that sealing was necessary to protect the standard’s confidentiality. The court said confidentiality alone did not decide whether the public’s access to court documents should be limited.
Judge Schofield denied the request without prejudice, meaning the defendant could renew it. She set a September 26, 2023, deadline for a renewed request that explained the legal basis for sealing. The clerk was directed to keep the currently sealed documents sealed while a renewed request remained possible and to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd · No. 1:22-cv-08012
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. submitted a letter motion asking the court to approve a sealed filing connected to its motion to dismiss. The filing included a declaration attaching the ISO 8217:2017 standard. According to the request, the standard’s cover page stated that it should not be reproduced or used in any form, including by posting it on the internet.
Glencore Singapore proposed filing the complete declaration and exhibits with access limited to counsel of record and the court. It would file a public version in which the ISO standard was replaced by a placeholder. The request stated that this arrangement would protect the standard’s confidentiality.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in American history, but is not absolute. Courts must balance competing considerations against the presumption that judicial documents should be accessible to the public. The court held that the defendant’s conclusory assertion about the ISO standard’s confidentiality was not enough, by itself, to restrict public access under Second Circuit law.
Disposition
The request to seal was denied without prejudice to renewal. The defendant was permitted to file another request by September 26, 2023, with an explanation sufficient under Second Circuit case law. The clerk was directed to keep all documents that were already sealed under seal while a renewed motion remained possible and to close the motion at Docket 29. This order addressed the sealing request; the opinion text does not state how the motion to dismiss was resolved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.