Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-00351
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aurelius Capital v. Argentina, Judge Preska granted plaintiffs’ request to seal materials related to summary-judgment filings.
The plaintiffs in the six listed cases, whose specified summary-judgment materials may be filed under seal; the public’s access to those materials is limited.
What happened
Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina involved plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials related to their summary-judgment filings under seal. The order also addressed related requests in five other listed cases.
The plaintiffs argued that the materials contained commercially sensitive and confidential information, information covered by a protective order, and investment strategies and holdings not involved in the case. The court found that these reasons outweighed the public’s general right to inspect court records.
Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the specified materials under seal. She also directed the Clerk to close the corresponding open letter motions in all six civil cases.
The detailed version
- Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina · No. 1:19-cv-00351
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
The court considered plaintiffs’ letter motion to file certain materials under seal in connection with their summary-judgment filings. The order identified the lead case, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina, and five related civil cases: Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ACP Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina, 683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina, Adona LLC, et al. v. The Republic of Argentina, and Ape Group SPA, et al. v. The Republic of Argentina.
Reasons for the Order
The court stated that court materials carry a strong presumption of public access. It explained that sealing is justified 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. The court found that the reasons offered by plaintiffs—including commercially sensitive information, confidential information covered by the parties’ protective order, and investment strategies and holdings not at issue in the case—outweighed the presumption of public access.
Disposition
The court GRANTED plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials under seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the open letter motions corresponding to the request in the lead case and in the five related cases, identified by docket numbers 143, 118, 125, 126, 131, and 64, respectively. Judge Loretta A. Preska signed the order on February 12, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.