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 L3Harris’s request to keep Exhibits 1–7 under seal.
The ruling affects L3 Technologies, Inc. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc.’s ability to file Exhibits 1 through 7 publicly, as well as public access to those exhibits. The opinion identifies the exhibits as confidential communications produced by Thales Avionics, Inc.
What happened
In Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc., L3Harris asked the court to seal seven exhibits supporting L3 Technologies’ opposition to a request for an order helping enforce arbitration. The exhibits contained communications produced by the plaintiff and marked highly confidential and for outside counsel’s eyes only.
L3Harris argued that the documents contained confidential, competitively sensitive information and that the public had little interest in seeing them. It also relied on arguments from an earlier request to seal similar materials.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the defendant’s application and ordered that Exhibits 1 through 7 remain under seal. The order addressed document access and did not decide the underlying arbitration or preliminary-injunction dispute.
The detailed version
- Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00112
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 7, 2024
Background
L3 Technologies, Inc., together with its parent, L3Harris Technologies, Inc., asked the court for permission to file Exhibits 1 through 7 to a supplemental declaration under seal. The declaration supported the defendant’s opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration.
The letter requesting sealing stated that the exhibits contained confidential and competitively sensitive information. It also stated that the documents consisted of confidential communications produced by the plaintiff in response to an earlier court order allowing the plaintiff to designate documents as “highly confidential and for outside counsel’s eyes only.” L3Harris relied on arguments made in an earlier sealing request and cited prior orders sealing related materials.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the defendant’s application. It directed that Exhibits 1 through 7 attached to the White declaration remain under seal. The opinion addressed whether these documents should be publicly accessible; it did not decide the merits of the arbitration dispute or the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns sealing documents rather than the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.