SVB Financial Group v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Background

SVB Financial Group (SVBFG) filed an administrative motion concerning whether materials identified by a nonparty, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Silicon Valley Bank (FDIC-R1), should remain sealed in SVBFG’s amended complaint. FDIC-R1 had designated portions of paragraphs 31, 58, and 86–90 and footnote 6 as highly confidential. SVBFG opposed some proposed redactions but did not oppose others.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the sealing request concerned an amended complaint, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking to seal material must show reasons strong enough to outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The court also required the proposed sealing to be narrowly tailored and supported by specific facts about the harm that disclosure would cause.

Unopposed redactions

SVBFG did not oppose sealing the second and third sentences in paragraph 90 and the first and second sentences in footnote 6. The court found that these portions contained confidential bank-examination information relating to the FDIC’s examination of SVBFG. The court found compelling reasons to keep this narrowly tailored information sealed and granted FDIC-R1’s request as to those portions.

Opposed redactions

SVBFG opposed sealing portions of paragraphs 31, 58, and 86–89, the first and fourth sentences in paragraph 90, and the third and fourth sentences in footnote 6. FDIC-R1 argued that these materials were protected by the bank-examination privilege and included confidential information about FDIC rules, financial information, and its examination of SVBFG.

The court found that FDIC-R1 had not provided compelling reasons for sealing the opposed material. It said FDIC-R1’s explanation was not specific enough about how the bank-examination privilege applied or what competitive harm disclosure would cause. The court also found that much of the material was factual, including descriptions of events that were not shown to come from the FDIC’s examination of financial institutions. The court therefore denied without prejudice the motion to seal the opposed redactions.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal. It ordered that the specified unopposed portions remain sealed and that the opposed portions not be sealed under the request presented. The court directed SVBFG to file a revised redacted version of the amended complaint in the public record within seven days of the order’s issuance. The opinion also notes a discrepancy in SVBFG’s references to footnote 6 and states that the court used the page-and-line locations in the amended complaint to identify the disputed portions.