Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank
Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank; Moore v. Standard Chartered Bank; Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered Bank
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-02865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank: Judge Ramos granted the plaintiffs’ request to redact confidential information from filings and exhibits.
The plaintiffs in Bonacasa, Moore, and Smedinghoff; Standard Chartered Bank; and the nonparties PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd., The Bank of New York Mellon, and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation.
What happened
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank, Moore v. Standard Chartered Bank, and Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered Bank, the plaintiffs asked to publicly file redacted versions of their amendment memorandum and Exhibits B through H. The materials contained information that Standard Chartered Bank and nonparties had marked confidential under protective orders.
The plaintiffs took no position on the proposed redactions at that time. Standard Chartered Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd., The Bank of New York Mellon, and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation each asked the court to redact specified business, financial, internal-process, or customer-relationship information. The plaintiffs separately asked that any amended complaints later filed be public without redactions if amendment were allowed.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application on October 22, 2025. The text provided does not show a ruling on the separate request to amend the complaints.
The detailed version
- Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank · No. 1:23-cv-02865
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs sought permission to file a public version of their memorandum supporting a motion for permission to file amended complaints, along with public versions of Exhibits B through H, with proposed redactions. They also submitted versions filed under seal in which the proposed redactions were highlighted.
The proposed redactions concerned information designated as confidential or highly confidential under protective orders. The designations came from Standard Chartered Bank; PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd.; The Bank of New York Mellon; and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation. The materials included information concerning business practices, internal processes, systems and controls, customer relationships, analyses, and other nonpublic information described by the designating parties.
Parties’ positions
The plaintiffs said they took no position on the redactions at that time. They asked that any amended complaints later filed on the public docket be filed without redactions if the court granted their separate motion for permission to amend.
Standard Chartered Bank asked for redactions of nonpublic information and analyses related to its customer relationships. PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd. asked that information from specified documents and related deposition questions remain redacted because it concerned nonpublic internal processes and highly confidential business information. The Bank of New York Mellon asked for redactions from the deposition transcript of Vinu Kurian and related materials, citing information about its internal practices, procedures, systems, controls, and customer relationships. Midwest Fertilizer Corporation asked for redactions of information from specified documents and related deposition questions.
Ruling
The application was granted. The order therefore permitted the requested redactions of the referenced information in the plaintiffs’ memorandum and Exhibits B through H. The text provided does not state that the court ruled on the separate motion for permission to file amended complaints, and it does not state whether any future amended complaints would be filed with or without redactions.
Effect of the order
The ruling affected the public versions of the plaintiffs’ memorandum and Exhibits B through H, as well as the confidentiality interests asserted by Standard Chartered Bank and the nonparties that designated information under the protective orders. The provided text does not identify any ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.