Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Serifos Maritime v. Glencore Singapore, Judge Schofield granted Glencore’s request to keep a copyrighted standard mostly sealed while publicly filing relevant provisions.
Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd., the plaintiffs, public access to the court record, and the copyright interests associated with ISO 8217:2017.
What happened
In Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd., Glencore asked to seal Exhibit D, a copyrighted international fuel-oil standard, while allowing the public to see provisions that the parties relied on or that were already publicly available.
The court weighed the public’s right to inspect court documents against copyright interests. It concluded that keeping the document’s nonpublic and irrelevant portions sealed could prevent unauthorized copying while still allowing public access to the relevant provisions.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to seal Exhibit D substantially for the reasons stated in Glencore’s letter. The Clerk was directed to keep the document under seal and close the related letter motion.
The detailed version
- Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd · No. 1:22-cv-08012
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. asked the court to seal Exhibit D to a declaration supporting its motion to dismiss. Exhibit D was a copy of “ISO 8217:2017,” an international fuel-oil standard developed and published by the International Organization for Standardization. The letter stated that the complete standard was copyrighted and available for purchase, while some portions were publicly available or regularly quoted in industry publications.
The plaintiffs’ amended complaint cited and quoted Clause 5, Clause 6.6, and Annex B of the standard. Glencore’s motion-to-dismiss papers also discussed those portions. Glencore proposed filing those relevant or publicly available portions without redaction and redacting the remaining provisions. The court had previously denied, without prejudice, Glencore’s request to seal the entire exhibit.
Court’s Analysis
Judicial documents generally carry a strong public-access presumption. The court explained, however, that the right of access is not absolute. A court may seal material when sealing is necessary to protect more important interests and is narrowly limited to what is needed.
The court accepted the reasoning that filing the entire copyrighted standard publicly could allow members of the public to download, use, or distribute it without purchasing it. Limited redactions of provisions that were neither relevant to the motion to dismiss nor publicly available would protect those copyright interests while preserving access to the provisions relevant to the pending motion.
Disposition
Judge Schofield granted the motion to seal Exhibit D “for substantially the reasons stated in this letter.” The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain Exhibit D at Dkt. No. 30-4 under seal and to close the letter motion at Dkt. No. 52. The order did not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.