Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 2, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-11246
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn -----X DATE FILED: 01/02/2020 DAMIAN DALLA-LONGA, Petitioner, 19 Civ. 11246 (LGS) -against- □ ORDER MAGNETAR CAPITAL LLC, Respondent.

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Respondent was ordered to provide the Court revised proposed redactions to Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award by December 23, 2019 (Dkt. No. 15); WHEREAS, Petitioner was ordered to respond to any such proposed redactions by December 30, 2019 (Dkt. No. 22); WHEREAS, by letter to Chambers on December 23, 2019, Respondent proposed revised redactions on December 23, 2019. By letter to Chambers on December 31, 2019, Petitioner opposed certain of those redactions. It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent’s proposed redactions are GRANTED IN PART. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (‘[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). But for the redactions identified below, the proposed redactions are necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. It is further

ORDERED that the following redactions are overly broad and on that basis are DENIED: e All redactions in paragraph 13, but for the numerical percentage. e The employment position of the individual whose testimony is discussed in paragraph 14. e All redactions in paragraph 28, but for the names of employees. e All redactions in paragraph 72, but for the text enclosed in the parenthetical. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall re-file the Petition Vacate Arbitration Award by January 6, 2020, with redactions consistent with those proposed by Respondent as modified by this Order. Dated: January 2, 2020 New York, New York .

LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE