Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-04141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alix v. McKinsey, Judge Furman temporarily kept disputed documents sealed and deferred a final decision on sealing and redactions.
Jay Alix, AlixPartners, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the disputed court filings.
What happened
In Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., Jay Alix asked to file a redacted legal memorandum and keep certain exhibits under seal. AlixPartners supported the request, saying the materials contained confidential business strategies, board discussions, deposition testimony, and other competitively sensitive information.
The court ordered that the documents remain sealed temporarily. It said it would decide whether to keep them sealed or redacted when it resolves the underlying motions. The clerk was also directed to terminate the related filing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not make a final ruling on the sealing or redaction requests in this order.
The detailed version
- Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04141
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
Jay Alix sought permission to file a redacted consolidated memorandum opposing defendants’ motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and to file certain exhibits under seal. The exhibits included excerpts from deposition transcripts and a letter from AlixPartners’ former general counsel.
AlixPartners supported keeping the materials sealed. It described the materials as containing private discussions among board members, references to or quotations from board materials, internal business strategies, information about relationships with major stakeholders, and the results of contract negotiations. AlixPartners argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm and that the public interest in the information was limited.
Court’s action
The court stated that, under an earlier order, the documents would remain sealed temporarily. It would decide whether the documents should remain sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motions. The order did not finally grant or deny the request for permanent sealing or redaction.
The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 361. Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore issued a temporary sealing-related order rather than deciding the underlying motions or making a final determination about public access to the documents.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.