Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd
Opinion
CHRYSLER BUILDING 10 SPRUCE STREET 405 LEXINGTON AVE. 26TH FLOOR T ] S DALE SOUTH PORT, CT 00890 NEW YORK. NY 10474 203-254-8474 212-354-0025 & N A S T FAX: 203-254-164] FAX: 212-869-0063 WWW.TISDALE- LAW.COM TL@TISDALE-LAW.COM LAW OFFICES, LLC
November 3, 2023 Via ECF Honorable Lorna G. Schofield Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Serifos Maritime Corporation and Andros Maritime Agencies Ltd. v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. 22-CV-8012 LGS T&N File No. 2984
Dear Judge Schofield, We are counsel for Plaintiffs Serifos Maritime Corporation, and Andros Maritime Agencies Limited (“Plaintiffs”) in this matter and write to respectfully move the Court for permission to file the Proposed Second Amended Complaint under seal. The Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 8, 2023 provides that either party may designate certain information produced in discovery as “Confidential.” (ECF No. 39, p. 2). Defendant Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. (“Defendant”) has marked most of its document production as Confidential. The proposed Second Amended Complaint refers to information obtained from documents produced by Defendant which Defendant marked Confidential. In compliance with the Stipulation and Protective Order, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an interim order granting permission to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint under seal in accordance with the Court’s Individual Rule [.D.3. Plaintiffs take no position on whether, in fact, the information contained in the documents produced by Defendant is confidential. However, in accordance with Rule I.D.3. of this Honorable Court’s Individual Rules, Defendant as the party with the purported interest in confidential treatment bears the burden of persuasion. On this date, Plaintiffs have filed the following in relation to this Letter Motion: 1. Redacted Proposed Second Amended Complaint with redlined edits (with potentially confidential information redacted)
2. Unredacted Proposed Second Amended Complaint with redlined edits under seal with proposed redactions highlighted Plaintiffs respectfully propose that the following parties have access to the sealed filings: 1. Plaintiff Serifos Maritime Corporation 2. Plaintiff Andros Maritime Agencies Ltd. 3. Counsel for Plaintiffs a. Thomas L. Tisdale b. Timothy J. Nast 4. Defendant Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. 5. Counsel for Defendant a. Peter J. Behmke b. Barron M. Flood c. Michael P. Jones
Pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order dated October 30, 2023 (ECF. No. 61), the Proposed Second Amended Complaint has been filed with a redline draft showing changes from the Operative Complaint. Plaintiffs thank the Court for its consideration of their request to amend and remain available to address any questions or issues which may arise.
DENIED without prejudice to renewal. "The fo □ mmon law right of public access to judicial documents is Respectfully Submitted; / mly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not ent Lo tT) □ and courts “must balance competing ae □□ oA ) 2 Lf nsiderations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch ee) we Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. Thomas L. Tisdale _ (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. □ Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he as to access is one best left to the sound discretion the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case."). parties’ confidentiality designations are not dispositive whether the public's right of access to judicial documents competing considerations, such as the need to competitively sensitive information. Defendant may a request to maintain the Answer under seal by 14, 2023, with an explanation of the basis for the that is sufficient under Second Circuit case law. Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the at Dkt. No. 63. The Clerk of Court is respectfully + to maintain all currently sealed documents under pending a possible renewed motion to seal by LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE November 6, 2023
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd (Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.