ACP Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-10109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In ACP Master v. The Republic of Argentina, Judge Preska allowed redacted public filings after finding continued sealing justified.
The Republic of Argentina may publicly file the documents with specified redactions. The plaintiffs whose sensitive information appears in those materials, and members of the public seeking access to the filings, are also affected.
What happened
ACP Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina was among the actions listed in an order about materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary-judgment filings. The parties sent the court letters about whether those materials should be made public.
The plaintiffs argued that the materials included commercially sensitive information, private entities’ financial records, confidential ownership structures, purchasing information unrelated to the case, personal contact information, and similar material. The court weighed those concerns against the public’s strong presumptive right to access court records.
Judge Loretta A. Preska found that the reasons for continued sealing outweighed the presumption of public access. She ordered that the Republic may file the documents on the public docket with redactions consistent with the plaintiffs’ letter and the protective order.
The detailed version
- ACP Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina · No. 1:19-cv-10109
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 28, 2023
Background
The order’s caption lists six actions, including ACP Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina. The court received the parties’ letters concerning the unsealing of materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary-judgment filings.
Legal standard
The court stated that sealed materials carry a strong presumption of public access. Continued sealing requires specific findings on the record that sealing is necessary to protect more important interests, along with a sealing order narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Court’s ruling
The court found that the reasons described by the plaintiffs outweighed the presumption of public access. 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.
Judge Loretta A. Preska therefore ordered that the Republic may file the documents on the public docket with redactions consistent with the plaintiffs’ letter and the protective order. This order addressed access to and redaction of court filings; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the caption.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.