Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-09786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Novoriver v. Argentine Republic: Judge Preska allowed redacted filings after finding sensitive information outweighed public access.
The Republic of Argentina and the plaintiffs in the related cases were affected by the ruling on public filing and redaction of sealed materials. Members of the public were affected because the court continued to permit redactions of specified sensitive information.
What happened
In Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic and related cases, 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 not at issue, and personal contact information. It concluded that protecting this information outweighed the public’s presumptive right to access the materials.
Judge Preska ordered that the Republic may file public versions of the documents with redactions consistent with the plaintiffs’ letter and the protective order.
The detailed version
- Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic · No. 1:19-cv-09786
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
This order addressed materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary-judgment filings in Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic and related cases. The court received the parties’ letters concerning whether certain sealed materials should be unsealed. The opinion states that its docket references use docket-entry numbers from a related Aurelius Capital case.
Public access and sealing
The court explained that sealed court materials carry a strong presumption of public access. Continued sealing requires specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect higher values and an order narrowly tailored to that purpose.
The plaintiffs argued that the materials contained commercially sensitive information, financial records of non-public entities, confidential ownership structures, original purchasing entities that were not at issue in the case, personal contact information, and similar information. The court found that these reasons outweighed the presumption of public access.
Ruling
Judge Loretta A. Preska 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 and redaction of court materials; it did not decide the underlying claims or the parties’ summary-judgment arguments.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.