683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-10131
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In 683 Capital Partners v. The Republic of Argentina, Judge Preska granted plaintiffs’ request to file certain summary-judgment materials under seal.
The plaintiffs in the six listed actions, the Republic of Argentina as the defendant, and public access to the sealed materials.
What happened
In 683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina and five related actions, the plaintiffs asked to keep certain materials connected to their summary-judgment filings from public view.
The court found that the materials contained commercially sensitive and confidential information, including investment strategies and holdings not at issue in the cases. It ruled that these concerns outweighed the public’s interest in access to the materials.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the materials under seal and directed the clerk to close the listed sealing motions. Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska issued the order.
The detailed version
- 683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina · No. 1:19-cv-10131
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion asking to file certain materials related to their summary-judgment filings under seal. The order addressed six actions involving claims against The Republic of Argentina, including 683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina. The court noted that docket references in the order generally referred to the lead case, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 19-cv-351.
Legal standard
The court explained that court materials carry a strong presumption of public access. Sealing is allowed when the court makes specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect more important interests and narrowly limits the sealing order to what is needed.
Reasons for sealing
The court accepted the plaintiffs’ stated reasons for sealing: the materials contained commercially sensitive information, confidential information covered by the parties’ protective order, and investment strategies and holdings that were not at issue in the cases. The court found that these reasons outweighed the presumption of public access.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials under seal. It 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.