SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC: Judge Wang granted the parties’ request to redact and seal material concerning trade secrets and highly confidential documents.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., Advent Software Inc., and Arcesium LLC, as well as public access to the joint status letter and its unredacted contents.
What happened
In SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC, the parties jointly asked to redact parts of a status letter and file the unredacted version under seal. The letter referred to testimony about Geneva trade secrets and documents labeled highly confidential.
The parties argued that public access must be balanced against privacy and competitive-harm concerns. They said disclosure of the material could harm a litigant’s competitive standing and that the court had approved similar requests.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted the application and ordered the requested redaction and sealing. The order did not address the underlying dispute between the parties.
The detailed version
- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02009
- Ona Wang
- Oct. 18, 2023
Request
The parties jointly sought permission to redact portions of their joint status letter and to file an unredacted version under seal. The letter contained references to testimony about Geneva trade secrets and to documents that SS&C had designated “highly confidential—outside counsel and experts’ eyes only.”
Parties’ Position
The parties acknowledged that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access. They argued that this presumption must be balanced against privacy interests and the potential competitive harm from disclosing confidential business information. The letter cited cases discussing protection for information whose disclosure might harm a litigant’s competitive standing and stated that the court had granted similar sealing requests.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.” The court therefore granted the parties’ request to redact the joint status letter and file the unredacted version under seal. The opinion does not describe the specific redactions or separately explain the court’s reasoning beyond the parties’ submission. This was a sealing order and did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.