Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Judge Abrams found defendants’ sealing request insufficient and ordered more detail by December 3, 2024.
The defendants must provide a supplemental explanation for their proposed redactions by December 3, 2024; the order also concerns the public’s access to the court filings.
What happened
In Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, the defendants asked to seal parts of their motion for summary judgment, citing confidentiality obligations involving the names of sponsors of certain wind investments.
The court said the defendants had not provided enough specific information to show that confidentiality outweighed the public’s right to see court records. It gave them another opportunity to explain their request and ordered a supplemental letter by December 3, 2024.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not make a final ruling on whether the materials should remain sealed. She directed the defendants to provide more detail under the legal test governing access to judicial documents.
The detailed version
- Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-02313
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 26, 2024
Background
The defendants—Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and The Bank of New York Mellon—asked to seal portions of their motion for summary judgment. They argued that proposed redactions were justified because the names of sponsors of certain wind investments were subject to ongoing confidentiality obligations.
Legal standard
The court applied the three-part test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. That test allows court materials to be sealed only when interests such as confidentiality or privacy outweigh the presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the defendants’ explanation was not specific enough to support sealing under the Lugosch test. It also noted that confidentiality agreements between parties generally are not, by themselves, enough to overcome the public interest in disclosure and transparency.
Disposition
The court did not make a final ruling on whether the proposed redactions could be sealed. Instead, it gave the defendants an opportunity to provide additional information. The defendants were instructed to file a supplemental letter no later than December 3, 2024, explaining in greater detail and consistently with the cited case law why their confidentiality interests outweigh the right of public access.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.