CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-04877
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias, Judge Roman denied without prejudice requests to seal portions of documents and allowed revised requests.
The plaintiffs’ requests to seal documents were denied without prejudice, and the plaintiffs may submit revised requests. The clerk was directed to terminate the three motions.
What happened
CrossBorder Solutions, Inc. n/k/a Exactera Inc. and another plaintiff asked to file portions of documents under seal in connection with amended summary-judgment filings. The requested materials included confidential business information, client information, trade-secret information, and damages information.
The court said it could direct that complete documents be filed under seal, but not portions of documents. It therefore denied the requests at ECF Nos. 316, 340, and 345 without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to renew them.
The court directed the plaintiffs to identify complete documents and their corresponding filing numbers in revised requests. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the clerk to terminate the three motions.
The detailed version
- CrossBorder Solutions v. Macias · No. 7:20-cv-04877
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs asked to file documents under seal in connection with amendments to summary-judgment briefing. Their requests, filed at ECF Nos. 316, 340, and 345, sought to seal portions of documents and, for some exhibits, complete documents. The requests described information including CrossBorder’s profits, costs, clients, client-renewal rates, customer health notes, trade-secret Master List information, and damages allegedly connected to the theft of that list. The defendants’ counsel consented to the requests described in the supporting letters.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it may direct that complete documents be filed under seal. It did not rule on whether the identified confidential information ultimately satisfied the standard for sealing. Instead, it concluded that the requests needed to identify complete documents rather than portions of documents and provide the corresponding electronic filing numbers.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ letter motions at ECF Nos. 316, 340, and 345 without prejudice and with leave to renew. It directed the plaintiffs to file revised requests identifying the complete documents they sought to place under seal and their corresponding ECF numbers. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the three motions. Judge Nelson S. Roman’s order addressed the form of the sealing requests; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motions or the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.