AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_08/16/2024 AT&T CORP., : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-01395 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER ATOS IT SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES, INC., : Defendant. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff and Defendant have each filed documents under seal pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. See Dkt. Nos. 79, 82-83. Aside from a generalized statement, the only justification offered to date is that the documents were designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. Dkt. Nos. 65, 81. The Protective Order in this case states: “All Parties producing Confidential Discovery Material are deemed to be on notice that the Second Circuit puts limitations on the documents or information that may be filed in redacted form or under seal and that the Court retains discretion not to afford confidential treatment to any Confidential Discovery Material submitted to the Court or presented in connection with any motion, application or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court unless it is able to make the specific findings required by law in order to retain the confidential nature of such material.” Dkt. No. 50 § 19. It also states that “there is no presumption that Confidential Discovery Material will be filed with the Court under seal.” Jd. “The mere fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants . . . is not a valid basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents.” Jn re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015).

The parties are directed to meet and confer to limit the number of redactions and to file on the docket a letter no later than August 26, 2024, setting forth those documents previously filed under seal or in redacted form that may now be filed publicly and in unredacted form and, with respect to those documents as to which sealing and/or redaction is still appropriate, the specific factual basis upon which such treatment is requested. The letter shall refer to the document filed under seal or in redacted form by its docket number. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 81 as moot.

SO ORDERED.

a Dated: August 16, 2024 ol MC coos New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge