Haft v. General Electric Company, et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying without prejudice 64 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiffs' motion to seal is denied without prejudice. Overcoming the presumption of public access "requires a court to make specific, rigorous findings before sealing the docum ent or otherwise denying public access. Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 167 n.15 (2d Cir. 2013). Here, Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of public access. Plaintiffs rely on the fact that the documents were marked as "confidential" when produced by Defendant, but that fact alone does not provide the Court with enough information to seal the documents in question. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the complaint must be filed on the docket without redaction no later than January 27, 2022. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 64. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/21/2022) (rro)

Case 1:21-cv-00506-GHW Document 67 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 1/21/2022
Rachel Soffin
800 S Gay St, Ste 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
865-247-0080
[e-mail]

January 19, 2022
Dear Judge Woods:
Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules, Plaintiffs Asher Haft and Robert Fisher write to
respectfully request that the Court authorize limited redactions in the Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs have filed contemporaneously with this letter motion, which contain or reference
materials designated by Defendant, Haier Us Appliance Solutions Inc. d/b/a GE Appliances, as
“CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to ECF No. 43.
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to redact information regarding Defendant’s internal email
correspondence discussing information relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and the alleged defect at issue
in this litigation, which Defendant recently produced in discovery. As shown in the unredacted
Second Amended Complaint, submitted concurrently with this letter motion, Plaintiffs’ request is
narrowly tailored and concerns a very small amount of material. A publicly available version of
the Second Amended Complaint will remain on file with only minimal redactions.
I.

Legal Standard

The district court enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether to seal or redact
documents filed in federal courts. Geller v. Branic Int’l Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir.
2000); see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Second Circuit has set forth
a three-part analysis to determine whether a document relating to a lawsuit should be available to
the public. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). First, the court must
determine whether the documents are “judicial documents,” to which the public has a presumptive
right of access. Id. at 119. In order to be considered judicial documents, the documents must be
“relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Id.
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, if the court determines that the materials in
question are judicial documents, then the court must determine the weight of the presumption of
access. Id. “[T]he weight to be given the presumption of access must be governed by the role of
the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such
information to those monitoring the federal courts.” United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049
(2d Cir. 1995). Finally, “the court must ‘balance competing considerations against [sealing].’”
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Such countervailing factors
include but are not limited to the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and
the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Case 1:21-cv-00506-GHW Document 67 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 2

While Plaintiffs have only just received and reviewed the discovery materials referenced
in the Second Amended Complaint, and do not waive any right in the future to seek de-designation
of these materials as confidential, for present purposes, Plaintiffs acknowledge that materials that
“contain non-public strategies and financial information constitute ‘confidential commercial
information’” that warrants protection from disclosure under Federal Rule 26(c)(1)(G). New York
v. Actavis, PLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149327, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014).
II.

Requested Relief

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court authorize redactions of information Defendant
has marked confidential from their Second Amended Complaint, and that the sealed, unredacted
version of the papers be made available via ECF to the Court and all Parties’ attorneys in this
matter.
The undersigned has conferred with counsel for Defendant who confirmed that Defendant
does not object to the relief requested herein.
Sincerely,

Rachel Soffin
CC:

All Counsel of Record

Plaintiffs' motion to seal is denied without prejudice. Overcoming the presumption of public access
"requires a court to make specific, rigorous findings before sealing the document or otherwise denying
public access.” Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 167 n.15 (2d Cir. 2013). Here, Plaintiffs
have not provided the Court with a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of public access.
Plaintiffs rely on the fact that the documents were marked as "confidential" when produced by Defendant,
but that fact alone does not provide the Court with enough information to seal the documents in question.
Unless the Court orders otherwise, the complaint must be filed on the docket without redaction no later
than January 27, 2022.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 64.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2022
New York, New York

_____________________________________

GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge