Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2024

Adona LLC v. The Republic of Argentina

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:19-cv-11338
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Adona LLC v. Argentina, Judge Preska granted plaintiffs’ request to seal certain summary-judgment materials containing sensitive information.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs in the six related cases, the Republic of Argentina, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court materials.

What happened

Adona LLC v. The Republic of Argentina involved plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials connected to their summary-judgment filings under seal. The order addressed requests in six related cases.

The plaintiffs said the materials contained commercially sensitive and confidential information, investment strategies and holdings unrelated to the case, and information covered by a protective order. The court found those reasons outweighed the public’s presumption of access to court records.

Judge Preska granted the plaintiffs’ requests to file the specified materials under seal and directed the clerk to close the related letter motions. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Adona LLC v. The Republic of Argentina · No. 1:19-cv-11338
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
Feb. 12, 2024

Background

Plaintiffs in six related cases filed letter motions asking to submit certain materials connected to their summary-judgment filings under seal. The order identifies the Adona LLC case as Civil Case Number 19-cv-11338 and states that docket-entry numbers refer to the lead case, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 19-cv-351.

Sealing Request

Court filings generally carry a strong presumption of public access. A court may restrict access when it makes specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect more important interests and narrowly limits the sealing order to what is necessary.

The plaintiffs offered several reasons for sealing: the materials contained commercially sensitive information, confidential information covered by the parties’ protective order, investment strategies and holdings not at issue in the case, and similar information. The court found that these reasons outweighed the presumption of public access.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the plaintiffs’ request to file the specified materials under seal. The clerk was directed to close the open letter motions identified in the order for all six civil cases. The order addressed access to filings and did not resolve the underlying claims or summary-judgment issues.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.