Davis v. Odn I Gmbh
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-01463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davis v. Odn I GmbH, Judge Garnett granted Davis’s request to redact Contrarian’s ownership names from the amended complaint.
Eugene Davis, Contrarian Management LLC, and the public’s access to the ownership information contained in the First Amended Complaint.
What happened
In Davis v. Odn I GmbH, Eugene Davis asked to redact the names of the members and sub-members of Contrarian Management LLC from his First Amended Complaint. The information had been produced by Contrarian in response to an interrogatory and designated confidential under a protective order.
Davis argued that the redactions protected sensitive ownership information about a non-public company and were limited to the names, without affecting the public’s ability to understand the claims. The defendants consented to the proposed redactions.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the application. She allowed Davis to file the proposed redacted complaint and a redline version, identified as Docket Nos. 35-1 and 35-2, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 34.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Odn I Gmbh · No. 1:24-cv-01463
- Garnett
- Apr. 17, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Eugene Davis moved under Rule I.D.3 of Judge Garnett’s individual rules for permission to redact limited portions of his First Amended Complaint. The requested redactions concerned the names of the members and sub-members of defendant Contrarian Management LLC.
The information came from Contrarian’s responses to Davis’s First Interrogatory. Contrarian had designated those responses as confidential under a protective order entered on March 27, 2024. The defendants consented to the proposed redactions.
Reasoning Presented
Davis argued that courts must balance the public’s right to access judicial documents against privacy interests. He asserted that the redactions would protect sensitive ownership information about Contrarian, described as a non-public company, and were narrowly limited to the members’ and sub-members’ names. He also argued that the redactions would not affect the public’s ability to read or understand the claims in the First Amended Complaint.
Ruling
The court granted the application. Plaintiff may file the proposed redacted version of the First Amended Complaint and the redline version, Docket Nos. 35-1 and 35-2. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 34.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.