Valelly v. Lynch
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Caproni granted Merrill’s request to redact employees’ personal information from class-certification exhibits.
Merrill and the financial advisors whose licensing-system identification numbers, email addresses, and phone numbers appeared in Exhibits B, C, and D were affected by the order; the plaintiff took no position on the request.
What happened
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Merrill asked to file three exhibits to the plaintiff’s reply on class certification with certain information redacted. The exhibits contained email exchanges involving Merrill financial advisors and included their licensing-system identification numbers, email addresses, and phone numbers.
Merrill argued that this personal information was private, unrelated to the class-certification issues, and not relevant to the litigation. The plaintiff questioned whether redaction was necessary but took no position because the information appeared unrelated to the substance of the case.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted Merrill’s application. The order allowed the requested redactions in Exhibits B, C, and D.
The detailed version
- Valelly v. Lynch · No. 1:19-cv-07998
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated asked for permission to file certain exhibits to the plaintiff’s reply memorandum supporting class certification in redacted form. The request concerned Exhibits B, C, and D, which were email exchanges between the plaintiff and two Merrill financial advisors.
Requested Redactions
Merrill sought to redact the financial advisors’ Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System identification numbers, email addresses, and phone numbers. Merrill argued that this information was personally identifiable, belonged to employees or non-parties with privacy interests, and was not relevant to deciding the class-certification issues or the litigation generally. Merrill did not seek to redact the reply memorandum or the substance of the exhibits.
The plaintiff expressed skepticism about whether the information had to be redacted but took no position on the request because the information appeared irrelevant to the substance of the litigation.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application. The order therefore permitted Merrill to file the identified portions of Exhibits B, C, and D with the requested personal information redacted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.