Chen et al v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal 70 Letter Motion to Seal. The Request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal on a proper showing that portions of the Transcript and references to those portions should be confidential. See DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997). Any party seeking to renew the Request shall do so by January 25, 2023 and shall include their proposed redactions to the Transcript. The documents at ECF Nos. 71 and 72 shall remain as visible only to the selected parties in the meantime. If no party renews the Request, ECF Nos. 71 and 72 will then be unsealed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 1/18/23) (yv)

Case 1:22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC Document 75 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTINE CHEN, MICHAEL NGUYEN, and all other
similarly situated employees of SS&C,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 22 Civ. 2190 (JPC) (SLC)

-v-

ORDER
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant SS&C Technologies, Inc.’s (“SS&C”) request to file under
seal (i) the entirety of Plaintiff Michael Nguyen’s (“Nguyen”) deposition transcript (the
“Transcript”) and (ii) the portions of SS&C’s opposition (ECF Nos. 71, 73 (the “Opposition”)) to
Nguyen’s motion to quash (ECF No. 64) that the reference the Transcript, because the Transcript
and Opposition contain information that the parties may designate as confidential. (ECF No. 70
(the “Request”)). “A presumption of public access attaches to documents filed on the docket[.]”
McKoy v. The Trump Corp., No. 18 Civ. 9936 (LGS), 2023 WL 159671, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2023)
(citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006)). Here, SS&C
has failed to rebut that presumption. See Bernsten v. O’Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 168–69
(S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Courts in this District have long held that bargained-for confidentiality does not
overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents.”) (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the Request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal on a proper showing
that portions of the Transcript and references to those portions should be confidential. See
DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997). Any party seeking to

Case 1:22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC Document 75 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2

renew the Request shall do so by January 25, 2023 and shall include their proposed redactions
to the Transcript. The documents at ECF Nos. 71 and 72 shall remain as visible only to the
selected parties in the meantime. If no party renews the Request, ECF Nos. 71 and 72 will then
be unsealed.
Dated:

New York, New York
January 18, 2023

SO ORDERED.
_________________________
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge

2