Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2024

Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:22-cv-05013
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Railware v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Failla granted Amtrak’s request to seal specified filing materials and terminated a pending motion.

Who this affects

Amtrak and Railware; docket entry 125 is viewable only by the court and the parties.

What happened

In Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak asked the court to seal parts of its response and an exhibit containing information labeled confidential under a protective order.

Amtrak said the request was limited to sensitive business information and that it had asked Railware for its position, but had not received a response when the request was filed.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application, ordered docket entry 125 kept under seal and viewable only by the court and the parties, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 123.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05013
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
May 21, 2024

Background

Amtrak asked the court for permission to file certain materials under seal in response to Railware’s request for a conference concerning pre-motion discovery. The request covered highlighted portions of Amtrak’s response and Exhibit C, which contained discovery that Amtrak had designated confidential under the protective order at docket entry 108.

Amtrak stated that it had asked Railware by email for its position on the sealing request but had not received a response. Amtrak argued that its proposed redactions and sealing request were narrowly limited to confidential business information.

Ruling

The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to maintain docket entry 125 under seal, with access limited to the court and the parties. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 123.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.