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

Filing 668

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 663 Letter Motion to Seal: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' redaction requests at Dkt. No. 663 are GRANTED in part, as further set forth in this order. ORDERED that by September 14, 2020, the p arties shall file public redacted versions of their responses to the pretrial memoranda of law with redactions as proposed, except for the redactions rejected above. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 663. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/11/2020) (jwh)

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

15 Civ. 211 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, by joint letter dated September 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Syntel Inc. and Syntel
Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. (“Syntel”) and Defendants The TriZetto Group Inc. and
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. requested certain redactions to their responses to the
pretrial memoranda of law. (Dkt. No. 663). It is hereby
ORDERED that the parties’ redaction requests at Dkt. No. 663 are GRANTED in part.
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.”). The proposed redactions, except for the following, are narrowly tailored to
prevent unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information:
•
•

Syntel’s proposed redactions to damages figures in their response to Defendants’
pretrial memorandum of law at Dkt. No. 665 on pages 20 and 25.
Syntel’s proposed redactions to damages figures in Defendants’ response to Syntel’s
pretrial memorandum of law at Dkt. No. 666 on page 24.

It is further

ORDERED that by September 14, 2020, the parties shall file public redacted versions of
their responses to the pretrial memoranda of law with redactions as proposed, except for the
redactions rejected above.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 663.
Dated: September 11, 2020
New York, New York

2