King v. Habib Bank Limited
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-04322
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In King v. Habib Bank Limited, Judge Wang granted 19 sealing motions and denied one as moot after reviewing discovery-related confidentiality claims.
The parties to the case, whose discovery materials and related filings were sealed or redacted, as well as members of the public seeking access to those court records.
What happened
In King v. Habib Bank Limited, the parties asked to seal discovery materials and portions of filings that discussed confidential information, including bank customer and medical information, compliance procedures, regulatory materials, and customer-identification procedures.
The court held that discovery documents exchanged under the parties’ protective order were not ordinarily judicial documents subject to public access. It also found that the parties had justified redacting confidential information from filings related to discovery. The court granted 19 sealing motions in their entirety and denied one motion as moot because the documents it concerned had been removed from the docket.
Judge Ona T. Wang directed the parties to identify the specific docket numbers involved in any future sealing motion. The Clerk was directed to close the docket entries for the 20 motions addressed by the order.
The detailed version
- King v. Habib Bank Limited · No. 1:20-cv-04322
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 16, 2025
Background
The parties had filed numerous discovery-related motions, many accompanied by requests to seal documents under their stipulated protective order. The court stated that 20 sealing motions were pending.
The requested seals concerned two general categories of material:
1. Exhibits attached to motions, briefs, joint status letters, and declarations that had been exchanged during discovery and designated confidential under the protective order. 2. Portions of filings that described or summarized those exhibits, or referred to bank customer information, including medical information; compliance procedures; regulatory oversight and supervisory materials; and customer-identification procedures. The parties had designated this information confidential under the protective order or generally treated it as strictly confidential.
Legal standard
The court explained that the public has a common-law and constitutional right of access to judicial documents. A filed item is a judicial document when it is relevant to the court’s functions and useful in the judicial process. The strength of the public-access presumption depends on the document and its relationship to the court’s adjudicative role. The party seeking to seal material bears the burden of justifying secrecy.
Documents merely exchanged between parties during discovery generally are not judicial documents. The court also noted that courts may protect confidentiality agreements on which parties reasonably relied.
Analysis
Ten motions sought to seal, among other things, exhibits exchanged during discovery and designated confidential under the protective order. The court found that these exhibits were non-judicial documents to which the confidentiality agreement could fairly apply, with no countervailing public-access right.
Sixteen motions also sought to seal portions of the filings themselves. The court treated those filings as judicial documents to which a presumption of public access could apply. It nevertheless found that the presumption was low because the filings concerned discovery matters. After reviewing unredacted versions, the court confirmed that the proposed redactions referred to information designated confidential under the protective order or information normally kept strictly confidential. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect privacy and business interests.
Disposition
The court granted in their entirety the sealing motions at ECF Nos. 240, 252, 262, 273, 283, 287, 291, 299, 307, 313, 321, 323, 332, 337, 339, 349, 352, 357, and 363.
The court denied as moot the joint sealing motion at ECF No. 269 because the documents it concerned, ECF Nos. 270 and 271, had been stricken from the docket. The court summarized the result by stating that all outstanding sealing motions except ECF No. 269 were granted as proposed by the moving parties. It directed the parties to identify the specific docket numbers corresponding to any future sealing motion and directed the Clerk to close the docket entries for the listed motions, including ECF No. 269.
Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order on January 16, 2025.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.