Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-05013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Railware v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Failla granted Amtrak’s request to seal specified discovery materials and redacted letter portions.
Railware, Inc. and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, in their pending litigation.
What happened
In Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak asked the court to seal discovery materials that Railware had designated as highly confidential and for attorneys’ eyes only. Railware did not oppose the request.
Amtrak sought to seal Exhibits 5 through 8 in their entirety and to redact only the portions of its letter discussing those exhibits. The request concerned sensitive business information.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep docket entry 89 under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties, and to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 87.
The detailed version
- Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05013
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 27, 2024
Background
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, asked for permission to file under seal a letter concerning Railware, Inc.’s discovery and Exhibits 5 through 8. Amtrak stated that Railware had designated the exhibits as “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and that the exhibits contained discovery documents and responses produced by Railware. Railware did not oppose the sealing request.
Requested Sealing
Amtrak asked the court to seal Exhibits 5 through 8 in their entirety because Railware had designated each document and response as containing sensitive business information. Amtrak also asked to redact only the highlighted portions of its letter that quoted or discussed that discovery. Amtrak stated that its request did not take a position on Railware’s confidentiality designations.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entry 89 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 87.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.