GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILEI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT a a SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK □□ Es Oc

GE Transportation Parts, LLC, Plaintiff, 19-CV-4826 (AJN) —y— ORDER Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC, Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The parties have renewed their request to redact confidential settlement-related information. In support of their request, the parties argue that the redactions are warranted because of the “general commercial sensitivity of the settlement” and because the settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision. However, “[b]road and general findings” are insufficient to justify redaction of judicial documents. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). And it is well-settled that an obligation to keep information confidential does not on its own justify redaction, even where the confidentiality obligations exists to protect a third party. See, e.g., Accent Delight Int’l Ltd. v. Sotheby’s, 394 F. Supp. 3d 399, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Accordingly, the parties’ redaction requests are denied. The June 1, 2020 Memorandum and Order will be filed without redactions. Furthermore, Defendant’s opening memorandum of law, Dkt. No. 22, and reply, Dkt. No. 39, for its Transfer Motion should be re-filed in unredacted form no later than one week from the date of this order. Also, the unredacted version Plaintiff's opposition to the transfer motion, Dkt. No. 31, will be made publicly available. This resolves Dkt. No. 52

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2020 AM i i New York, New York é ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge