Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. et al

Filing 1007

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that parties' proposed redactions are accepted for the reasons explained in the chart below. (As further set forth in this Order.) It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file the documents in redacted form on the public docket by June 25, 2021. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/11/2021) (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
SYNTEL STERLING BEST SHORES
:
MAURITIUS LIMITED, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants, :
:
-against:
:
THE TRIZETTO GROUP., et al.,
:
:
Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

15 Civ. 211 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, by letter motion dated May 14, 2021, the parties requested permission to file
certain exhibits filed in support of their motions in limine and post-trial briefing in redacted or
sealed form (Dkt. 986).
WHEREAS the proposed redactions contain confidential source code and confidential
cost, financial and third-party information. It is hereby
ORDERED that parties’ proposed redactions are accepted for the reasons explained in
the chart below. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is
firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance
competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one
best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the
relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”).

a. Syntel’s Requests
Relevant Filing
Syntel’s MIL 1

Docket Number
Dkt. Nos. 729-1,
729-3

Syntel’s MILs 5,
8

Dkt. Nos. 735-13,
738-13

Declaration of
Adam Kaufmann
in Opposition to
Syntel’s Motion
for Judgment as a
Matter of Law, a
New Trial or
Remittitur

Dkt. No. 964-7,
964-8

Ruling
GRANTED. The document includes information
related to Syntel’s clients and finances; the proposed
redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against
competitive harm, which outweighs the presumption of
access accorded to filings regarding MILs.
GRANTED. This document consists of an excerpt of
source code, which if unsealed would result in
competitive harm. That harm outweighs the
presumption of access accorded to filings regarding
MILs.
GRANTED. The document includes information
related to Syntel’s clients and finances; the proposed
redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against
competitive harm to Syntel and its clients, which
outweighs the presumption of access accorded to posttrial filings.

b. TriZetto’s Request
Relevant Filing
Syntel’s MIL 1

Docket Number
Dkt. No. 729-1

Ruling
GRANTED. The document includes information
related to TriZetto’s and Cognizant’s finances, costs and
business relationships; the proposed redactions are
narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm to
TriZetto and its customers, which outweighs the
presumption of access accorded to filings regarding
MILs.

It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall file the documents in redacted form on the public docket
by June 25, 2021.
Dated: June 11, 2021
New York, New York

2