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 keep specified filings under seal and terminated the pending motion.
Amtrak and Railware are affected by the sealing order; docket entries 114 and 115 are available only to the court and the parties.
What happened
Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation involved Amtrak’s request to seal parts of its opposition and three exhibits containing confidential business information covered by a protective order. Railware did not oppose the request.
The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to keep docket entries 114 and 115 sealed and accessible only to the court and the parties.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 111.
The detailed version
- Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05013
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 22, 2024
Background
Amtrak, the name used in the opinion for National Railroad Passenger Corporation doing business as Amtrak, asked for permission to file certain materials under seal. The request covered highlighted portions of Amtrak’s opposition to Railware’s motion concerning Amtrak’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses, along with Exhibits A through C. The materials included information designated as confidential or highly confidential under a protective order. The parties had discussed the request, and Railware did not oppose it.
Court’s Action
The court granted the application. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entries 114 and 115 under seal, with access limited to the court and the parties. The order also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 111.
Result
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Amtrak’s sealing request and ordered the specified docket entries kept from public access. The opinion does not provide the contents of those entries or separately decide the underlying dispute concerning Amtrak’s counterclaims or affirmative defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.