Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Filing 65

ORDER granting 63 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's request at ECF No. 63 is GRANTED. The document filed at ECF No. 64 shall remain under seal and as visible only to the selected parties and the Court. The redacted version filed at ECF No. 62-2 shall remain as visible to the public. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 63. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave on 11/15/23) (yv)

1325 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS

212 980 7400 TEL

SUITE 2601

212 980 7499 FAX

NEW YORK, NY 10019

ROBINS KAP LAN.COM

BRYAN J. VOGE L
212 980 7403 TEL
BVOGE L@ROBINS KAP LAN.COM

Via ECF & Email
([e-mail])

November 14, 2023
Hon. Katherine Polk Failla
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Room 2103
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Plaintiff's request at ECF No. 63 is GRANTED. The document
filed at ECF No. 64 shall remain under seal and as visible only
to the selected parties and the Court. The redacted version
filed at ECF No. 62-2 shall remain as visible to the public.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 63.
SO ORDERED.

11/15/2023

Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak, 1:22-cv05013 (KPF); Railware’s Letter Motion For Leave to File Document Under Seal

Dear Judge Failla:
We represent Plaintiff, Railware, Inc. (“Railware”). Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rules
of Practice, Rule 9(B), we respectfully request leave to file under seal Exhibit B to the Parties’
Joint Letter, pursuant to ECF No. 61 (“Joint Letter”), filed contemporaneously herewith.
In general, in order to be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be narrowly
tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and must be otherwise
consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See, e.g.,
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court has
found that “presumption of access may be outweighed when there are considerations of the need
to conceal confidential business information that could harm a defendant’s competitive position
or reveal a trade secret.” Ramirez v. Temin & Co., Inc., No. 20 CIV. 6258 (ER), 2020 WL
6781222, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020).
Railware does not seek to seal all the material identified in Exhibit B to the Parties’ Joint Letter.
Rather, Railware seeks to seal only selected, narrowly tailored, excerpts of this exhibit which are
at risk of disclosing Railware’s confidential business information, including but not limited to
Railware’s commercial and business practices which are not publicly known to competitors and
reasonably may be construed as having a risk of altering Railware’s competitive position in the
marketplace. Ramirez, No. 20 CIV. 6258 (ER), 2020 WL 6781222, at *7 (“As such, public
access to this information could alter the Firm’s competitive position in the consulting market.”).
Accordingly, Railware respectfully requests that the Court grant the request to seal the
highlighted portions of Exhibit B to the Parties’ Joint Letter.