IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-09910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In IBM v. Micro Focus, Judge Reznik granted requests to seal portions of the objections and Exhibit 3.
IBM Corporation, Micro Focus (US), Inc., the selected parties permitted to access the sealed materials, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus (US), Inc., the parties asked to keep Exhibit 3 and references to it in the defendant’s objections confidential. IBM agreed that Exhibit 3 contained non-public and highly confidential information, and did not object to the proposed redactions.
Judge Reznik explained that court filings are generally presumed to be open to the public, but that presumption is weaker for materials related to discovery disputes. The court found that Exhibit 3 appeared to contain confidential commercial information and that the proposed redactions were limited to references to that exhibit.
Judge Victoria Reznik granted the sealing requests. The order directs the Clerk to keep ECF Nos. 153 and 153-1 through 153-3 under seal and available only to selected parties, while the publicly filed version with the limited redactions remains publicly available. The parties must later inform the court whether any documents covered by a temporary confidentiality designation should remain sealed.
The detailed version
- IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-09910
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
The court considered the parties’ requests to seal portions of the plaintiff’s Rule 72 objections and Exhibit 3 attached to those objections. The defendant had filed the objections and asked that Exhibit 3 remain under seal. It also filed a public version of the objections with proposed redactions covering references to Exhibit 3. IBM agreed to sealing Exhibit 3 because it contained non-public, confidential, and highly confidential information whose disclosure would cause prejudice. IBM did not identify any objection to the proposed redactions in the public filing.
Legal standard
The common law and the First Amendment generally create a presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. A judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. To overcome that presumption, the court must find that sealing is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored to protect that interest. The presumption is generally weaker for filings connected to discovery disputes than for materials introduced at trial or submitted with motions that could end the case. Courts in the district commonly allow sealing or redaction of commercially sensitive and confidential business information.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the disputed materials were judicial documents because they were submitted in connection with resolving the defendant’s Rule 72 objections. The court found that Exhibit 3 appeared to contain confidential commercial information and therefore should remain under seal and accessible only to selected parties. It also found that the proposed redactions to ECF No. 153 were narrowly limited to references to Exhibit 3, so the public filing with those redactions could remain publicly available.
Disposition
Judge Victoria Reznik granted the parties’ requests to seal. The court directed the Clerk to maintain ECF Nos. 153 and 153-1 through 153-3 under seal and available only to selected parties. The order also addresses documents designated highly confidential under the protective order only through the end of a 30-day review period after final transcripts become available. Once that period ends, the parties must notify the court by joint letter; if they seek continued sealing, the letter must state the basis for that request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.