Harrington Global Opportunity Fund, Ltd. v. BofA Securities, Inc., et al.

Background

Defendants CIBC World Markets, Inc., Merrill Lynch Canada, Inc., and BofA Securities, Inc. asked the court to maintain under seal five categories of materials: their reply supporting a motion to exclude testimony from Robert J. Shapiro; a supplemental declaration from Abby F. Rudzin; excerpts from Shapiro’s deposition; the expert report of Terrence Hendershott; and spreadsheets containing alleged spoofing episodes involving CIBC and Merrill Lynch customers.

The filings contained the names of non-party customers, information about alleged spoofing episodes, and customer order and trade data. The request stated that the court had previously sealed filings containing similar information, including customer identities and the number of alleged spoofing episodes.

Reasoning

The court applied the standard governing requests to seal judicial documents. That standard requires balancing the public’s right of access against countervailing interests, including privacy interests, and requires sealing to be essential to protect an important interest and narrowly tailored to that interest.

The request argued that the customer identities had no bearing on the court’s consideration of Defendants’ motion or on Harrington’s claims, which were asserted against Defendants. It also argued that customer names were competitively sensitive and that disclosure could cause reputational harm by suggesting that non-parties engaged in wrongdoing even though the allegations had not been adjudicated. The request further identified the spreadsheets and related materials as containing specific information about alleged spoofing episodes, including their number, dates, duration, price impact, and underlying order and trade data.

The request also stated that the public versions contained only limited, necessary redactions, except for the spreadsheets. On that basis, it argued that sealing the unredacted versions was narrowly tailored and would not improperly impair public access.

Ruling

The motion to seal was granted. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 542. The order therefore kept the specified unredacted filings under seal; the text provided does not identify any additional ruling on the underlying claims or on the motion to exclude testimony.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolves access to court filings rather than deciding the parties’ underlying legal claims.