Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Loomis Sayles v. Citigroup, Judge Schofield denied a sealing motion without prejudice and set deadlines for renewed requests and public filings.
Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., the non-party Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P., the clients whose identities and account numbers appeared in the exhibits, and the employees whose compensation information appeared there.
What happened
In Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., the plaintiff asked to file materials under seal or with redactions in connection with its motion for class certification. The requested protections covered client names and account numbers, employee compensation information, a personnel-sharing agreement, and materials designated confidential by Citigroup under a protective order.
The court’s order addressed how the parties should handle those materials on the public docket. It required Citigroup to file any motion to seal or redact the materials identified in the order, or to state that it did not object to some or all of them being filed publicly. The order also required the plaintiff to publicly file documents to which Citigroup did not object.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion without prejudice to renewal and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 162. The order set September 5, 2025, for Citigroup’s filing or response and September 10, 2025, for the plaintiff’s public filings.
The detailed version
- Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc · No. 1:22-cv-06706
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC asked for permission to file under seal an unredacted memorandum supporting its motion for class certification, appointment of a class representative, and appointment of class counsel. It also sought to file certain exhibits in redacted form or under seal.
The request identified several categories of information. Exhibits E, F, L, M, N, and O contained the names and account numbers of Loomis clients. Exhibits E and F contained compensation information for Aziz Hamzaogullari and Gregory Woodgate. Exhibit J was an agreement between LSTC and non-party Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P., concerning personnel sharing and containing proprietary commercial information.
Other materials had been designated confidential or highly confidential by Citigroup under the protective order entered in the case. Those materials included portions of expert reports, deposition transcripts, and settlement notifications. LSTC stated that it was relying on Citigroup’s confidentiality designations for those materials and took no position on whether they independently required sealing.
Legal standard and requested protections
The opinion describes a three-step sealing analysis. The court first determines whether the materials are judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access, then determines the weight of that presumption, and finally balances public access against competing interests. Sensitive commercial information and the privacy interests of non-parties may overcome the presumption when the party seeking secrecy meets its burden.
LSTC argued that its clients’ identities and account numbers were unrelated to the class-certification motion and implicated legitimate privacy interests. It also argued that the employee compensation information was private and that Exhibit J contained sensitive, nonpublic commercial information.
Ruling
The supplied order states that the motion was denied without prejudice to renewal. By September 5, 2025, Citigroup was required to file any motion to seal or redact the materials referenced on page 3 of Docket Number 162, or to file a letter stating that it had no objection to some or all of those documents being filed publicly. By September 10, 2025, LSTC was required to file publicly any documents to which Citigroup did not object. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 162.
The order addressed docket-access and confidentiality procedures; it did not decide the merits of LSTC’s motion for class certification.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.