Martin Nicholas John Trott et al. v. Deutsche Bank, AG
- Ho
- 1:20-cv-10299
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 23
In Trott v. Deutsche Bank, Judge Ho granted some sealing requests, denied others, and ordered temporary sealing while Deutsche Bank may renew narrowly tailored requests.
Deutsche Bank, the Joint Liquidators, non-party individuals and entities whose information appears in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to the court record.
What happened
In Martin Nicholas John Trott et al. v. Deutsche Bank, AG, the court considered eight requests to redact or seal documents filed with the parties’ summary-judgment and expert-related motions. Deutsche Bank sought to keep information about its business practices, investigations, and non-party information from public view; the Joint Liquidators sought temporary sealing while those requests were pending.
The court granted Deutsche Bank’s first sealing motion in part and denied it in part. It denied Deutsche Bank’s other four sealing motions. It granted the Joint Liquidators’ three motions for temporary sealing, allowing the documents to remain temporarily sealed while Deutsche Bank considers whether to submit narrower requests.
Judge Ho held that the documents were judicial records with a strong presumption of public access. The court ordered two specified documents to remain under seal and directed that the remaining documents stay temporarily sealed for 30 days, during which Deutsche Bank may seek specific, narrowly tailored redactions or sealing.
The detailed version
- Martin Nicholas John Trott et al. v. Deutsche Bank, AG · No. 1:20-cv-10299
- Ho
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
The court addressed eight motions concerning redactions and sealing of documents and exhibits filed in connection with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and Deutsche Bank’s motion to exclude expert testimony. Deutsche Bank filed five sealing motions. The Joint Liquidators—Martin Nicholas John Trott and Christopher James Smith—filed three motions seeking temporary sealing while Deutsche Bank’s requests were considered.
The materials included deposition excerpts, expert reports, emails, spreadsheets, bank policies, and documents concerning law-enforcement investigations, customer accounts, transactions, and non-party information. The court noted that some information had already been publicly disclosed in a related case and that a protective order or a confidentiality designation alone did not justify sealing.
Legal standard
The court applied a three-step test. First, it determined whether the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumptive public right of access. Second, it assessed the strength of that presumption. Third, it balanced public access against competing interests, such as protecting genuinely sensitive business information or the privacy of non-parties. Any sealing had to be supported by specific findings and narrowly tailored to protect the asserted interest.
The court found that all of the materials at issue were judicial documents. Because they were connected to summary-judgment or expert motions, the presumption of public access was especially strong. The court rejected broad and unsupported claims that disclosure could cause competitive harm, particularly where Deutsche Bank sought to seal entire expert reports, deposition transcripts, or large groups of exhibits without explaining the need for each proposed redaction or seal.
Rulings
The court ruled on Deutsche Bank’s five motions as follows:
- Deutsche Bank’s motion concerning materials related to the parties’ summary-judgment motions, Rule 56.1 statements, and its expert-related motion, ECF No. 141, was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The court granted the request concerning ECF Nos. 151-3 and 151-33, which contained client names and information about Deutsche Bank’s cooperation with law enforcement. It denied the requests concerning the other specified exhibits, including deposition excerpts, expert reports, emails, spreadsheets, and other materials for which Deutsche Bank had not shown a specific and narrowly tailored need for sealing. - Deutsche Bank’s motion concerning exhibits filed with the Joint Liquidators’ opposition to its expert-related motion, ECF No. 172, was DENIED. The court found that the requests covering deposition excerpts, expert reports, a “Know Your Customer Policy,” and a spreadsheet were overbroad or inadequately supported. - Deutsche Bank’s motion concerning its Rule 56.1 statement and expert-motion reply, ECF No. 174, was DENIED. - Deutsche Bank’s motion concerning documents filed with the Joint Liquidators’ summary-judgment reply, ECF No. 192, was DENIED. The court found that Deutsche Bank had not justified sealing the requested exhibits on a document-by-document basis and said that some non-party information could instead be redacted. - Deutsche Bank’s motion concerning its further summary-judgment reply, ECF No. 196, was DENIED.
The Joint Liquidators’ three motions for temporary sealing, ECF Nos. 164, 171, and 175, were GRANTED. The court allowed the subject materials to remain temporarily sealed to give Deutsche Bank a limited opportunity to renew its requests.
Final instructions and effect
The Clerk was directed to maintain ECF Nos. 151-3 and 151-33 under seal. The remaining documents covered by the motions were to remain temporarily sealed for 30 days. During that period, Deutsche Bank could file renewed motions proposing specific redactions or sealing, supported by document-by-document explanations, legal authority, and requests limited to information that had not already been made public in the related case. If no renewed motion was filed for particular materials, the court stated that those materials would be unsealed. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 141, 164, 171, 172, 174, 175, and 196.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.