Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.

S.D. New York

Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.

DecidedNovember 6, 2025

Docket1:15-cv-00211

StatusUnknown

This text of Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.) 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

Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K --------------------------------------------------------------X : SYNTEL STERLING BEST SHORES : MAURITIUS LIMITED, and SYNTEL, INC., : : Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, : : 15 Civ. 211 (LGS) -against- : : ORDER THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC. and : COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS : CORP., : : Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs. : : --------------------------------------------------------------X

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, Counterclaim Defendants Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. (together, “Syntel”) and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Cognizant TriZetto Software Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (collectively, “TriZetto”) move to seal various documents filed in connection with the parties’ motion in limine (“MILs”) and the jury trial. WHEREAS, the motions are generally decided as follows: • The proposed sealing of entire exhibits is generally denied without prejudice to renewal, except exhibits for which specific redactions would apply to virtually all of the document.. • Proposed redactions of portions of exhibits are generally granted. • Proposed redactions by one party to another party’s documents are generally denied as superseded by any motion to seal by the other party. Where the other party did not file any superseding motion to seal, these proposed redactions are generally denied. WHEREAS, a three-part inquiry determines whether to seal a document. See Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2022); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The first question is whether the document is “a judicial document subject to the [presumed] right of public access,” meaning that the document is “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119.1 The second step, if the presumption attaches, is to determine the weight of the presumption by assessing “the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. The third step is to balance against the presumption any “competing considerations” such as “the

danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id. at 120. In weighing the presumption against competing considerations, a court must consider the “qualified First Amendment right of access” and can seal documents based on this right only “if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. WHEREAS, the party moving to place documents under seal “bears the burden of showing that higher values overcome the presumption of public access.” Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Examples of “higher values” include protecting the attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124-25, “the privacy interests of innocent third parties,” United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995), and the confidentiality of

sensitive commercial information, see Ayrton Cap. LLC v. Bitdeer Techs. Grp., No. 24 Civ. 5160, 2025 WL 1745680, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2025).

1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, footnotes and citations are omitted, and all alterations are adopted. 2 WHEREAS, the documents at issue here are judicial documents. They fall into three broad categories: (1) the parties’ submissions on MILs, oppositions to the other side’s MILs and Syntel’s motion to reconsider this Court’s order on Syntel’s MIL No. 1; (2) the parties’ memoranda of law on the Seventh Amendment issue; and (3) the parties’ proposals, objections and letters regarding the June 2025 jury trial. WHEREAS, “[m]aterials submitted in connection with, and relevant to, discovery motions, motions in limine, and other non-dispositive motions are subject to a lesser -- but still substantial -- presumption of public access.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019); accord Ayrton Cap. LLC, 2025 WL 1745680, at *2. While MILs, the Seventh Amendment

briefing and trial-related submissions, as a practical matter, may be important to the resolution of the case, they are not dispositive and do not “determin[e] litigants’ substantive rights -- conduct at the heart of Article III . . . .” Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1049. WHEREAS, one consideration that may override the presumption of public access is preserving the secrecy of “specific business information and strategies, which, if revealed, may provide valuable insights [to competitors].” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The presumption of public access is rebuttable only with “specific, on the record findings . . . that closure is essential to preserve higher values . . . .” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. “Vague and unspecified business concerns, like confidential and related business interactions that could be used by corporate competitors in a detrimental manner,

are broad, general, and conclusory allegations insufficient to justify sealing.” Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. Trizetto Grp., Inc., No. 15 Civ. 211, 2025 WL 444873, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2025).

3 MILs It is hereby ORDERED that Syntel’s motion at Dkt. 1236 to seal its memorandum of law in support of its MIL No. 1 and Exhibits 1-5 to the Declaration of Crystal Parker is DENIED as superseded by TriZetto’s motion to seal at Dkt. 1352, which is GRANTED. The proposed redactions in TriZetto’s motion are narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm, which outweighs the presumption of access accorded to the documents. By November 21, 2025, Syntel shall refile the documents according to TriZetto’s proposed redactions at Dkt. 1353 on the public docket. The unredacted versions of the documents are filed at Dkts. 1240 and 1241. It is further ORDERED that Syntel’s motion at Dkt. 1242 to seal its memorandum of law in support

of its MIL No. 2 and Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 to the Declaration of Crystal Parker is DENIED. Confidential designations are not dispositive of whether the public’s right of access to judicial documents overcomes competing considerations. It is further ORDERED that Syntel’s motion at Dkt. 1248 to seal its memorandum of law in support of its MIL No. 3 and Exhibits 1-4 to the Declaration of Crystal Parker is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Syntel’s memorandum of law and Exhibit 1. The proposed redactions in Syntel’s motion are narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm, which outweighs the presumption of access accorded to the documents. The motion is DENIED as to Exhibits 2-4 as superseded by TriZetto’s motion to seal at Dkt. 1354, which is GRANTED. The proposed redactions in TriZetto’s motion are narrowly tailored to protect against competitive

harm, which outweighs the presumption of access accorded to the documents. By November 21, 2025, Syntel shall refile the documents according to TriZetto’s proposed redactions at Dkt. 1355 on the public docket. The unredacted versions of the documents are filed at Dkts. 1252 and 1253. It is further 4 ORDERED that Syntel’s motion at Dkt.

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