SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Background

SVB Financial Group (SVBFG) filed an administrative motion asking the court to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The motion concerned portions of SVBFG’s opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. SVBFG said those portions contained information that non-party FDIC-C had designated “highly confidential” under a protective order in SVBFG’s Chapter 11 proceedings.

FDIC-C filed a statement supporting sealing. It asked the court to keep sealed figures on page two of SVBFG’s opposition brief. According to FDIC-C, the figures were the alleged amount of the advance dividend authorized on March 10, 2023, for Silicon Valley Bank depositors. FDIC-C argued that the information was an internal agency recommendation protected by the bank examination privilege and federal regulations. No party opposed FDIC-C’s statement.

Court’s analysis

Because the sealing motion involved briefing on a dispositive motion, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, material more than tangentially related to a case’s merits may be sealed only when compelling reasons support sealing. The court also considered the requirement that sealing be narrowly tailored to only the material that can properly be sealed.

The court agreed that compelling reasons supported sealing the internal agency recommendation. It found that the material was deliberative and covered by the bank examination privilege. The court also found that FDIC-C’s request was narrowly tailored to the sealable material.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted SVBFG’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The order identified SVBFG’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, with material highlighted on page two, as granted for sealing because the material was protected by the bank examination privilege. This order addressed sealing and did not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.