Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-10409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina, Judge Preska granted the request to seal specified materials from plaintiffs’ summary-judgment filings.
The plaintiffs in the listed cases may file the specified summary-judgment materials under seal, limiting public access to those materials.
What happened
In Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina, the plaintiffs asked to file certain materials connected to their summary-judgment filings under seal.
The plaintiffs said the materials contained commercially sensitive and confidential information, information covered by a protective order, and investment strategies and holdings not at issue in the case. The court found those reasons outweighed the public’s interest in accessing the materials.
Judge Preska granted the request to file the specified materials under seal. The court also directed the clerk to close the listed letter motions in the six civil cases identified in the order.
The detailed version
- Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina · No. 1:20-cv-10409
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
The order addresses plaintiffs’ letter motion seeking permission to file certain materials related to their summary-judgment filings under seal. The order lists six civil cases, including Ape Group SPA v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 20 CV 10409.
Reasons for Sealing
The court noted that court materials generally carry a strong presumption of public access. It explained that sealing is justified when the court makes specific findings that sealing is needed to protect more important interests and limits the sealing order to what is necessary.
The plaintiffs identified commercially sensitive information, confidential information covered by the parties’ protective order, investment strategies, holdings not at issue in the case, and similar material. The court found that these reasons outweighed the presumption of public access.
Ruling
The court granted plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials under seal. It also directed the clerk to close the open letter motions at docket numbers 143 in No. 19-cv-351, 118 in No. 19-cv-9786, 125 in No. 19-cv-10109, 126 in No. 19-cv-10131, 131 in No. 19-cv-11338, and 64 in No. 20-cv-10409.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.