Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-00112
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thales Avionics v. L3 Technologies, Judge Tarnofsky granted L3 Technologies’ request to keep its January 31 letter under seal.
L3 Technologies, Inc. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc., whose January 31, 2024 letter will remain under seal; the public will not have access to that letter on the docket.
What happened
Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc. concerns L3 Technologies’ request to file a letter under seal in the federal court case.
L3 Technologies said the letter contained confidential, competitively sensitive communications about a competitive bidding process that had not yet produced a final sale. It relied on arguments from an earlier sealing request and cited materials the court had previously sealed.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the application. The court ordered the January 31, 2024 letter to remain under seal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related electronic filing.
The detailed version
- Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00112
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 31, 2024
Background
L3 Technologies, Inc., together with its parent company, L3Harris Technologies, Inc., asked permission to file a January 31, 2024 letter under seal. The letter responded to a request made by the court at a conference the previous day.
L3 Technologies represented that the letter contained confidential and competitively sensitive information concerning communications made during a competitive bidding process that had not resulted in a final sale. It also stated that the information was similar to material the court had previously ordered filed under seal. The request relied on the arguments in an earlier letter concerning sealing.
Ruling
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the defendant’s application. The court ordered that the January 31 letter remain under seal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 37. The opinion does not provide a separate explanation beyond the order granting the application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.