Lytle v. JPMORGAN CHASE

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “conclusory statements that documents contain confidential business information” do not justify sealing materials
• explaining that “conclusory statements that documents contain confidential business information” do not justify sealing materials
• explaining that “conclusory statements that documents contain confidential business information” do not justify sealing materials
• warning that “every private employer accused of employment discrimination in federal court would presumably seek to have the names of any involved non- party employees redacted from its court filings”
• ruling on a party’s request to redact names of individuals .whose conduct had been investigated in relation to alleged harassment and discrimination complaints, the court held “[wjhile the conduct at issue may be potentially embarrassing to these employees (and JPMC
• noting that “the [Second] Circuit has only recognized such confidentiality interests as a countervailing factor in the context of investigations conducted by law enforcement officials—not those of corporations investigating allegations of employee misconduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).