Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.

S.D. New York

Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 18, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-02190

StatusUnknown

This text of Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc. (Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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 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.

( a L. Ue nited States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 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.

( a L. Ue nited States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chen-v-ssc-technologies-inc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack