Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited
Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited, for and on behalf of Lloyd's Syndicate 1414
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Citgo Petroleum v. Starstone Insurance, Judge Woods granted limited redactions to protect a threatened third-party witness.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation, the other parties to the case, the third-party witness whose identity and testimony were at issue, and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
In Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Starstone Insurance SE, et al., Citgo asked to redact a witness’s name and testimony-related information from pretrial materials and related filings. Citgo said disclosure could reveal the witness’s identity and create a safety risk.
The court said the materials were judicial documents, so the public-access presumption applied. But it found that the public could still understand the filings after limited redactions, while the witness had previously been threatened and feared for their safety.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the motion to seal. The ruling allows only targeted redactions of the witness’s name and personally identifiable information, including testimony descriptions that could readily reveal the witness’s identity.
The detailed version
- Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Ascot Underwriting Limited · No. 1:21-cv-00389
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 9, 2023
Background
Citgo moved to file under seal unredacted copies of certain joint and individual pretrial materials, responses, replies, and related exhibits. The court understood the request to cover the joint pretrial order and briefing related to a motion in limine seeking witness protection, including a reply. Citgo requested redaction of the witness’s name, deposition transcriptions, and descriptions of anticipated trial testimony because the information could reveal the witness’s identity and jeopardize the witness’s safety.
Legal Standard
The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-step framework for sealing judicial documents. First, it determined whether the materials were judicial documents—materials submitted to the court that were relevant and useful to the judicial process. Second, it assessed the weight of the presumption of public access. Third, it balanced that presumption against legitimate reasons supporting nondisclosure.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the requested portions of the joint pretrial order and motion-in-limine briefing were judicial documents. It gave the public-access presumption relatively modest weight because the requested redactions were limited and the public would still be able to read and understand the documents.
The court gave substantial weight to the interests opposing disclosure. The witness, a third party, had declared that they had been threatened in the past and feared for their safety. The court concluded that the risk of physical violence and the witness’s privacy interests outweighed the public-access presumption as to the targeted information.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal. It permitted only limited, targeted redactions: the witness’s name and personally identifiable information, including deposition testimony or descriptions of anticipated trial testimony to the extent those descriptions could make the witness’s identity readily ascertainable. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 192.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.