Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-10409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Ape Group v. Argentina: Judge Preska allowed redacted public filings after finding sensitive information outweighed public access.
The Republic of Argentina may publicly file versions of the documents with permitted redactions. The redactions protect information concerning the plaintiffs and other non-public entities, including confidential business, financial, ownership, purchasing, and personal contact information.
What happened
In Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina, the court considered letters about whether materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary-judgment filings should be made public.
The court found that the materials included commercially sensitive information, private entities’ financial records, confidential ownership structures, purchasing information, and personal contact information. It ruled that these concerns outweighed the public’s interest in access to the materials.
Judge Preska ordered that the Republic may file publicly available versions of the documents with redactions consistent with the plaintiffs’ letter and the protective order.
The detailed version
- Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina · No. 1:20-cv-10409
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 28, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ letters concerning the unsealing of materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary-judgment filings. The court explained that sealed materials ordinarily carry a strong presumption of public access. Continued sealing requires specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect more important interests and that the sealing order is narrowly tailored.
Reasons for Sealing
The court accepted the reasons presented by the plaintiffs for continued sealing. Those reasons included commercially sensitive information, financial records of non-public entities, confidential ownership structures, original purchasing entities not at issue in the case, personal contact information, and similar information. The court found that these interests outweighed the presumption of public access to the materials.
Ruling
The court ordered that the Republic may file documents on the public docket with redactions consistent with the plaintiffs’ letter and the protective order. The order addressed access to sealed materials; it did not decide the underlying claims in the litigation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.