Moshell v. Sasol Limited et al
ORDER granting 135 LETTER MOTION to Seal Defendants' Reply Memorandum addressed to Judge John P. Cronan from Jonathan D. Polkes dated February 9, 2021. Document filed by David Edward Constable, Stephen Cornell, Bongani Nqwababa, Sasol Limited, Stephan Schoeman, Paul Victor. Defendants' proposed redactions are citations to documents previously sealed or redacted. Accordingly, Defendants' request is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 2/12/2021) (rjm)
Case 1:20-cv-01008-JPC Document 135 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 2
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153-0119
+1 212 310 8000 tel
+1 212 310 8007 fax
February 9, 2021
Jonathan D. Polkes
+1 212 310 8881
Hon. John P. Cronan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 1320
New York, NY 10007
Chad Lindsey Moshell v. Sasol Ltd., et al., Case 1:20-CV-01008 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Judge Cronan:
We write on behalf of Defendants Sasol Limited, David Edward Constable, Bongani Nqwababa, Stephen
Cornell, Paul Victor, and Stephan Schoeman (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-referenced action.
Defendants respectfully request leave, under Rule 4(B) of this Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in
Civil Cases (the “Individual Rules”), to file under seal Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 24, 2020 Memorandum Order and Motion
for Sanctions (“Reply Brief” in support of the “Motions”) and to publicly file a redacted form thereof.
The redacted material in the Reply Brief includes quotations from documents previously filed in
connection with Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s August 24, 2020 Memorandum Order and Motion for Sanctions [ECF No.
114]. The Court previously granted Defendants’ request to file those documents under seal. [See ECF Nos.
121, 125.] Specifically, the Reply Brief quotes from the already-sealed exhibits and transcripts revealing
the Confidential Witnesses’ identities. In the January 6, 2021 Order (“Order”) [ECF No. 121 at 4] sealing
these materials, the Court found “that the Confidential Witness’ privacy interests outweigh the
presumption of public access to the information contained in the limited proposed redactions.” [Id.; see
also ECF No. 125 at 3 (“[T]he Court finds that CW-4’s privacy interests outweigh the presumption of
public access to the information contained in the proposed sealed document.”).] Additionally, the Reply
Brief quotes from already-sealed documents reflecting “the mental impressions, strategy, and opinions of
Plaintiff’s counsel and private investigator.” [ECF No. 121 at 4.] With regard to these documents, the
Court’s Order held that “Plaintiff’s interests in limiting the dissemination of confidential material
outweigh the presumption of public access to the information contained in the proposed sealed
Case 1:20-cv-01008-JPC Document 135 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 2
Hon. John P. Cronan, U.S.D.J.
February 9, 2021
Accordingly, in continued compliance with the Court’s previous orders, and with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.
of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and other authorities, Defendants respectfully request that they
be permitted to file the Reply Brief under seal and to file a public version of the Reply Brief redacting
information quoted from the exhibits this Court previously ordered sealed.
/s/ Jonathan D. Polkes
Jonathan D. Polkes
cc: All counsel of record (by ECF)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?