Opinion
20 Civ. 2154 (LGS)
08-16-2021
FRANCIS DIDONATO, Plaintiff, v. GS SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, United States District Judge
WHEREAS, the parties have filed motions to redact and seal portions of their briefing in connection with Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Dkt. Nos. 85, 126, 129, 171. It is hereby
ORDERED that the motions to seal are GRANTED. Docket Nos. 88-91, 135-144, 146152, 154, 172, 174-175 shall remain sealed. 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 Commc'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.”). Filing the above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Nos. 85, 126, 129 and 171.