Vargas v. Barclays Bank Delaware

Background

The plaintiff’s counsel and co-counsel submitted an application under Judge Schofield’s Individual Civil Rule I.D.3. The application concerned a letter and exhibits that Barclays Bank Delaware had previously submitted on January 15, 2025, at ECF No. 42.

The underlying letter from Barclays’ counsel discussed the plaintiff’s January 9, 2025 production of information. According to that letter, Barclays had sought to compel arbitration because the complaint allegedly described facts indicating that the plaintiff was or had been a Barclays customer, and Barclays stated that customer agreements contained arbitration clauses that could cover the claims. The opinion text also states that the court had ordered the plaintiff to provide identifying information by January 8, 2025, and that the plaintiff later made the production.

Sealing request

The application asked to seal certain sections of the letter and all exhibits attached to it. The request stated that the production had been designated confidential under the stipulated confidentiality order at ECF No. 37. It also argued that the materials contained personally identifying information and financial information that could be sought by hackers or other criminals for identity theft. The appendix stated that Barclays and its counsel subject to the confidentiality order should have access to the letter previously filed under seal.

The materials reproduced in the opinion are partially redacted. The opinion does not identify the content of the redacted portions.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered: “Application GRANTED.” The court allowed the referenced letter to be filed with the proposed redactions and stated that the unredacted version of the letter had been filed at Dkt. 42. The opinion does not provide additional reasoning or specify a separate disposition for individual exhibits.