Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered PLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered, Judge Ramos granted plaintiffs’ request to redact information and file Exhibit A under seal.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs in the Bonacasa, Moore, and Smedinghoff matters and nonparty Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., whose designated confidential information may be redacted and filed under seal.
What happened
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank, the plaintiffs and nonparty Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. asked the court to approve redactions in the plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion and to seal Exhibit A. The material came from a declaration that Citigroup had designated confidential under a protective order.
Citigroup argued that sealing was appropriate because the declaration contained confidential business information, including customer relationships, business analysis, and decision-making about a potential project. The plaintiffs took no position on the redactions or sealing request.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request to redact the identified information and file Exhibit A under seal. The text provided does not state how the court ruled on the separate request to authorize disclosure of the unredacted materials to Bank of America’s counsel.
The detailed version
- Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered PLC · No. 1:22-cv-03320
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 1, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs in Bonacasa, Moore, and Smedinghoff, together with nonparty Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (CGMI), sought permission to redact information from the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 16, 2025 Opinion and Order and to file Exhibit A under seal. The motion referred to and attached a declaration that CGMI had designated confidential under the protective order.
The plaintiffs said they took no position on whether the information should be redacted or sealed. CGMI argued that the declaration contained confidential business information, including information about its customer relationships, business analysis, and decision-making process concerning a potential project. CGMI also relied on decisions recognizing limited public-access interests in discovery materials and the privacy interests of nonparties.
Requests
The plaintiffs requested authorization to disclose the proposed sealed motion and exhibit to counsel for BofA, even though BofA’s counsel had not executed the protective order and CGMI had not given written consent for that disclosure.
Ruling
The court granted the request to redact the referenced information in the plaintiffs’ motion and to file Exhibit A under seal. The text provided does not state the court’s disposition of the separate request to authorize disclosure to BofA’s counsel. The ruling concerns sealing and redaction, not the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.