Harrington Global Opportunity Fund v. BofA Securities, et al.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-00761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harrington Global Opportunity Fund v. BofA Securities, Judge Schofield’s court received defendants’ request to keep materials about nonparties and alleged spoofing episodes sealed.
The request concerns nonparty customers and employees identified in the filings, as well as the defendants and the public’s access to court records. The supplied text does not state the final effect on any of them.
What happened
In Harrington Global Opportunity Fund v. BofA Securities, the defendants asked the court to keep unredacted versions of several filings under seal. The materials concern a motion involving testimony by Jonathan Brogaard.
The defendants said the filings identify their customers and employees and contain details about alleged spoofing episodes, including their number and duration. They argued that disclosure could harm nonparties’ privacy and reputations and that the public versions contain limited redactions.
Judge Schofield is identified in the case information provided, but the supplied text does not state whether the sealing request was granted or denied. It appears to contain the defendants’ request rather than a ruling on that request.
The detailed version
- Harrington Global Opportunity Fund v. BofA Securities, et al. · No. 1:21-cv-00761
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 14, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The supplied text is a request by defendants CIBC World Markets, Inc., Merrill Lynch Canada, Inc., and BofA Securities, Inc. to keep unredacted versions of specified filings under seal. The request concerns portions of a reply supporting a motion to exclude testimony by Jonathan Brogaard, declarations by Abby F. Rudzin and Stephen J. Senderowitz, and excerpts from two depositions.
Reasons Given for Sealing
The defendants stated that the filings contain the names of nonparty customers and employees and specific information about alleged spoofing episodes involving customers. They argued that those individuals and firms have privacy and reputational interests, particularly because the alleged wrongdoing has not been adjudicated. They also argued that the information has no bearing on the court’s consideration of the motion and no significance to Harrington’s claim against the defendants.
The defendants further stated that the public versions use limited, necessary redactions, except that partial redactions were impractical for one customer declaration. They relied on prior sealing decisions in this case and other Southern District of New York cases concerning nonparty identities, confidential information, and unadjudicated allegations of wrongdoing.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the sealing request. It includes a direction to terminate the motion at ECF No. 548, but it does not explain the basis or effect of that direction. Accordingly, this summary does not characterize the request as granted or denied. Judge Schofield is the judge identified in the supplied case information, although the document itself addresses Judge Figueredo and labels the judicial signature block as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.