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

Background

Merrill moved for permission to file redacted versions of its reply memorandum supporting its motion for summary judgment and its statement of undisputed facts and responses to the plaintiff’s additional facts. The request followed an earlier order approving procedures for sealing and redacting filings. Merrill said it sought to redact information that it and non-party Bank of America, N.A. had designated confidential or highly confidential under the protective order.

The proposed redactions involved two general categories. The first concerned interest-rate-setting methods, factors used to determine rates, proposed rate changes, and inputs to Bank of America’s confidential forecasting and financial-modeling methods. The second concerned financial information about Merrill investment accounts, including account balances, cash swept, the number of particular accounts, and the number of statement-linked accounts. Merrill and Bank of America asserted that the information was not publicly shared, was subject to employee confidentiality policies and agreements, and could cause competitive harm if obtained by competitors.

Parties’ Positions

Merrill and Bank of America relied on the public-access standard for judicial documents and cited decisions recognizing that confidential business information may be sealed or redacted when the protection is narrowly tailored. They stated that the proposed redactions were consistent with information the court had previously allowed to be sealed or redacted in this case.

The plaintiff emphasized that the presumption of public access is particularly strong for summary-judgment materials. The plaintiff asked the court to postpone its decision on Merrill’s request until the court decided the underlying summary-judgment motion, so that any redactions in the summary-judgment decision would be consistent with the briefing. If the court chose to rule immediately, the plaintiff took no position.

Court’s Action and Disposition

Judge Valerie E. Caproni endorsed the filing on January 31, 2025, with the notation “ORDERED.” The provided opinion text does not state the court’s reasoning beyond the parties’ submissions and does not identify whether Merrill’s request for redactions was granted, denied, granted in part, or otherwise resolved. Accordingly, the disposition of the redaction request cannot be determined from the provided text.