LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-05496
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In LL Funds v. Fifth Third Bank, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ motions to seal limited settlement-related redactions in trial filings.
LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC and Fifth Third Bank, N.A.; the order permits limited redactions of confidential mediation and settlement information in the identified trial-related filings and transcript.
What happened
LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A. concerned the parties’ requests to seal documents filed for their pretrial and post-trial arguments and a bench-trial transcript.
The court said these materials were judicial documents with a strong presumption of public access. It found that the proposed redactions concerned confidential mediation and settlement discussions between Fifth Third Bank and a coalition of state attorneys general, and that the redactions were limited to specific information.
Judge Schofield granted the sealing motions at Docket Numbers 56, 60, 68, 80, 83, 86, and 87, and directed the clerk to close those motions.
The detailed version
- LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association · No. 1:24-cv-05496
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
The parties moved to seal documents filed in connection with their pretrial and post-trial memoranda of law and the transcript of their March 3, 2025, bench trial. The documents at issue were:
- Fifth Third Bank’s pretrial memorandum and supporting declarations; - LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC’s pretrial memorandum and supporting declaration; - Fifth Third Bank’s post-trial memorandum and supporting declarations; - LL Funds Administrative Agent, LLC’s post-trial memorandum and supporting declarations; and - the March 3, 2025, bench-trial transcript.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three-part test governing requests to seal court records. First, it asked whether the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumed right of public access. Second, it assessed the strength of that presumption. Third, it balanced public access against competing interests, including privacy and the protection of confidential information.
The court determined that all of the materials were judicial documents because they were relevant to the court’s work and useful in deciding the parties’ claims. Because the memoranda and transcript concerned a bench trial, they were entitled to a strong presumption of public access.
The parties represented that the proposed redactions concerned confidential information about mediation and settlement discussions between Fifth Third Bank and a coalition of state attorneys general. The court’s review confirmed that representation. It found that the proposed redactions were limited and specifically targeted information about those confidential discussions, making them sufficiently narrow to overcome the presumption of access.
Ruling
The court ordered that the sealing motions at Docket Numbers 56, 60, 68, 80, 83, 86, and 87 were GRANTED. The clerk was directed to close those motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.