Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank
Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank (No. 1:22-cv-03320); Moore v. Standard Chartered Bank (No. 1:23-cev-02834); Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered Bank (No. 1:23-cv-02865)
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank, Judge Ramos granted plaintiffs’ application to redact confidential information from filings in three related cases.
The plaintiffs in the three related cases, Standard Chartered Bank, nonparties PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd., The Bank of New York Mellon, and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation, and members of the public seeking access to the filings were affected by the order permitting redactions.
What happened
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank, Moore v. Standard Chartered Bank, and Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered Bank, the plaintiffs asked to file public versions of a memorandum and Exhibits B–H with proposed redactions. The materials included information designated confidential or highly confidential by Standard Chartered Bank and nonparties PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd., The Bank of New York Mellon, and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation.
The plaintiffs took no position on the proposed redactions at that time. Standard Chartered Bank and the nonparties asked the court to redact information involving confidential business information, internal processes, systems and controls, customer relationships, and deposition materials covered by a protective order. The plaintiffs separately asked that any amended complaints later filed on the public docket be unredacted if the court allowed amendment.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application on October 22, 2025. The order does not identify each individual redaction or separately resolve the plaintiffs’ request concerning any future amended complaints.
The detailed version
- Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank · No. 1:22-cv-03320
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs in three related cases sought permission to file a public version of their memorandum supporting a motion for leave to amend their complaints, along with redacted public versions of Exhibits B–H. They also submitted under-seal versions showing the proposed redactions. The requested redactions concerned material designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under a protective order.
The identified designating parties were Standard Chartered Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd. (PwC), The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation (MFC). The materials included information about business operations, internal processes, systems and controls, customer relationships, and deposition testimony or questions referring to protected documents.
Positions
The plaintiffs said they took no position on the redactions under the protective order. They requested, however, that any amended complaints ultimately filed on the public docket be filed without redactions if the court granted their motion to amend.
Standard Chartered Bank requested redactions for nonpublic information and analyses concerning its customer relationships. PwC requested redactions for information concerning nonpublic internal processes and highly confidential business information related to PwC and its member firms. BNY requested protection for deposition testimony and underlying documents concerning its internal practices, procedures, systems, controls, and customer relationships. MFC requested redactions for information it had designated highly confidential.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos marked the application “granted” and dated the ruling October 22, 2025. The ruling therefore granted the request to redact the referenced information in the plaintiffs’ memorandum and Exhibits B–H. The opinion does not list the precise redactions approved and does not state a separate ruling on the plaintiffs’ request that any future amended complaints be filed without redactions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.