Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-00004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, Judge Parker required Cairo Amman Bank to justify continued sealing or the court would unseal the exhibits.
The plaintiffs and Cairo Amman Bank, particularly regarding the exhibits attached to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
What happened
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, the plaintiffs asked to file exhibits under seal because the exhibits contained transcripts that Cairo Amman Bank had labeled highly confidential.
The court said it was unclear whether Cairo Amman Bank had reviewed or changed those confidentiality labels. The exhibits were filed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
Judge Parker ordered Cairo Amman Bank to file a motion explaining any proposed redactions by February 21, 2025, or the court would unseal the exhibits. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the plaintiffs’ sealing motion.
The detailed version
- Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank · No. 1:19-cv-00004
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
On October 10, 2024, the plaintiffs asked for permission to file under seal exhibits to the declaration of Dina Gielchinsky. The exhibits were filed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The plaintiffs said the exhibits contained transcripts that Cairo Amman Bank (CAB) had designated as “highly confidential.”
The plaintiffs had raised the confidentiality designations with CAB because they recognized that the exhibits might not be confidential enough to justify sealing. CAB told the plaintiffs that it would review the designations. The court said it was unclear whether CAB had reviewed or changed the designations.
Court’s Action
The court directed CAB, if it wanted the exhibits to remain sealed, to file a motion to seal by February 21, 2025. That motion must include proposed redactions and explain why the redactions comply with the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The court stated that it would unseal the exhibits if CAB did not file the motion by that date.
The court directed the clerk to terminate the plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 293. The order did not decide the underlying motion to compel or make a final determination that the exhibits should remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.