Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

Motion and requested relief

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated asked for permission to file under seal or in redacted form portions of materials supporting its motion for summary judgment. The materials included its memorandum of law, a statement of undisputed facts, expert reports and rebuttal reports, deposition excerpts, and three documents produced by non-party Bank of America, N.A. The requested sealing and redactions concerned confidential business information.

Parties’ positions

Merrill and Bank of America identified two broad categories of information. The first involved methods and factors used to set interest rates, proposed rate changes, and inputs to Bank of America’s internal financial forecasting and modeling. The second involved financial information about Merrill investment accounts, including account balances, cash swept, the number of accounts, and statement-linked accounts.

Merrill and Bank of America argued that the information was nonpublic, proprietary, and competitively sensitive. They stated that competitors could use it to make pricing or other business decisions that would cause competitive harm. They also relied on the court’s earlier sealing rulings in the case and on the principle that confidential business information can outweigh the public’s general right to inspect court records.

Valelly took no position on the request but made several observations. Valelly argued that documents supporting summary judgment receive a particularly strong presumption of public access, especially in a class action. Valelly also argued that some proposed redactions covered information that was years old, no longer proprietary, or had been distributed to many employees, including some who later joined other companies. Valelly asked the court to reserve judgment until it decided the underlying summary-judgment motion.

Ruling

The court entered the order “GRANTED” and ordered the requested sealing or redaction relief. The available opinion text does not provide a separate explanation from Judge Valerie E. Caproni beyond the signed disposition. The order resolved access to specified information in Merrill’s summary-judgment materials; it did not resolve the underlying claims or state the outcome of the summary-judgment motion.