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.
Amtrak and Railware are affected by the sealing order; docket entry 128 is available only to the court and the parties, rather than the public.
What happened
Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation concerned Amtrak’s request to seal parts of a letter about a discovery conference and an exhibit in the case.
Amtrak said the materials contained information that Railware had designated highly confidential under the parties’ protective order. Amtrak also said Railware had not responded to its request for a position on sealing.
Judge Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep docket entry 128 sealed and available only to the court and the parties, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 126.
The detailed version
- Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05013
- Katherine Failla
- May 21, 2024
Background
The order concerns a letter filed by National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, in the litigation against Railware, Inc. The letter sought permission to file certain materials under seal under the protective order in the case.
Sealing request
Amtrak asked to seal highlighted portions of its letter requesting a discovery conference to compel documents and interrogatory responses, as well as Exhibit B to that letter. Amtrak stated that the materials contained information Railware had designated “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order. Amtrak said it had asked Railware for its position on the request but had not received a response as of the filing.
Ruling
Judge Failla granted the application. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entry 128 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 126. The order did not decide the underlying discovery dispute or the merits of the litigation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.