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

Background

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated moved for permission to file under seal or in redacted form portions of materials that Valelly submitted in opposition to Merrill’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a case without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. The materials included Valelly’s memorandum, her response to Merrill’s statement of facts, deposition excerpts, and exhibits.

The requested sealing or redactions covered three categories: information about interest-rate-setting methods and financial forecasting; detailed financial information about Merrill investment accounts, including balances, cash swept, and account numbers; and commercially sensitive internal training materials. Merrill and its affiliate, non-party Bank of America, N.A., argued that disclosure could reveal proprietary business information and cause competitive harm. They also said most of the requested protections resembled protections the court had allowed in earlier sealing requests in this case.

The parties’ positions

Merrill and Bank of America relied on the court’s authority to restrict public access to judicial documents when confidential business information would otherwise be disclosed. They argued that the requested restrictions were narrowly tailored and protected information that was not shared publicly or with competitors.

Valelly took no position on Merrill’s request to seal confidential information, although she expressed skepticism about some of Merrill’s confidentiality claims. She asked the court to reserve judgment until it decided the underlying summary-judgment motion, so that any permitted redactions would be consistent with the court’s ruling on that motion. If the court chose to rule immediately, she still took no position on the request.

Court’s action

Judge Valerie E. Caproni reserved judgment on Merrill’s motion pending a decision on summary judgment. The order states that the filings at docket entries 268, 270, 272, 279, 281, and 283 would remain under seal until that time. The opinion does not state that Merrill’s sealing motion was granted or denied, and it does not decide the summary-judgment motion.