Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-08716
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Judge Engelmayer directed more support for sealing three exhibits and set an opposition deadline.
David Kurtanidze, Mizuho Bank, Ltd., and the parties addressing whether three exhibits should be filed under seal.
What happened
In Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., David Kurtanidze asked to file three exhibits under seal in support of his opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The exhibits contained documents that the defendants had marked confidential.
The court said that the parties’ confidentiality agreement and consent alone did not overcome the public’s general right to access court documents. It directed Kurtanidze to file a letter explaining the specific reasons for sealing Exhibits F, G, and J.
Judge Engelmayer set April 1, 2025, as the deadline for that letter and April 4, 2025, as the deadline for any opposition. The opinion did not decide whether the exhibits would ultimately be sealed.
The detailed version
- Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-08716
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
Plaintiff David Kurtanidze moved for permission to file three exhibits under seal in support of his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The exhibits were attached to a declaration and consisted of: Exhibit F, a Regulatory Report Transformation Program; Exhibit G, a Japanese-language email with native metadata and an English translation; and Exhibit J, an email chain dated February 10, 2021. Kurtanidze stated that the documents came from the defendants’ document production and had been marked confidential by the defendants. He relied on the parties’ confidentiality agreement.
Court’s Direction
The court explained that a confidentiality agreement or the parties’ consent is not, by itself, enough to overcome the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. The court directed Kurtanidze to file, by April 1, 2025, a letter complying with the court’s individual rules and explaining the particular reasons for requesting that Exhibits F, G, and J be filed under seal. Any opposition was due by April 4, 2025; the court invited no replies.
Effect of the Order
The court did not grant or deny the request to seal the exhibits in this order. It required additional explanation and established a schedule for further submissions. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer therefore left the sealing issue unresolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.