Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc.

Filing and Request

Counsel for Jay Alix submitted a letter supporting Alix’s request to seal and redact confidential information in materials attached to defendants’ reply briefs concerning their Rule 17 motions. The specific item discussed is Alix’s deposition transcript, filed as an exhibit to a reply brief.

Arguments for Sealing

The letter states that the transcript refers to confidential business topics, including confidential discussions by the AlixPartners, LLP board. It also states that defendants had not challenged Alix’s confidentiality designations under the stipulated protective order. According to the letter, making the transcript public would reveal sensitive business information belonging to Alix and AlixPartners, described in the filing as a private company and McKinsey’s competitor.

The letter argues that the transcript was not then a “judicial document”—a filing relevant and useful to the court’s judicial work—because the court had not yet considered it and might never do so. Alternatively, counsel argued that, even if the transcript were relevant to the court’s work, confidentiality interests outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure. The letter characterized the request as narrowly tailored and consistent with the general presumption of public access to judicial documents.

Court Action

The provided text does not contain a ruling by Judge Jesse M. Furman. It is a letter from plaintiff’s counsel requesting sealing. The text therefore does not establish whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise acted on the request. It also refers to earlier temporary sealing orders and to the court’s future assessment of certain sealed materials, but those references do not state the disposition of the request described here.