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-02834
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Bonacasa, Moore, and Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered Bank: Judge Ramos granted an application 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 sought permission to file redacted public versions of their memorandum and Exhibits B through H. Judge Ramos’s order also covered information designated confidential by Standard Chartered Bank and nonparties.
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 that information they had designated confidential or highly confidential remain redacted.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application. The opinion does not provide a separate explanation identifying each approved redaction.
The detailed version
- Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank · No. 1:23-cv-02834
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs in the three related cases asked the court for permission to file a redacted public version of their memorandum supporting a motion for permission to file amended complaints. They also asked to file redacted public versions of Exhibits B through H. The requested redactions concerned information designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under a protective order, including information designated by Standard Chartered Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd., The Bank of New York Mellon, and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation.
The plaintiffs were contemporaneously filing public versions with proposed redactions and under-seal versions identifying the proposed redactions. They took no position on the redactions at that time, but asked that any amended complaints later filed on the public docket be filed without redactions if the court allowed amendment.
Positions
Standard Chartered Bank asked the court to redact nonpublic information and analyses concerning its customer relationships. It argued that Second Circuit precedent permits targeted redactions protecting confidential business and financial information.
PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd. asked that references to specified documents and deposition questions remain redacted and under seal because they concerned nonpublic internal processes and highly confidential business information. The Bank of New York Mellon asked that information from the deposition transcript of Vinu Kurian remain redacted because it contained confidential business information about the bank’s internal practices, procedures, systems, controls, and customer relationships. Midwest Fertilizer Corporation asked that references to specified documents and related deposition questions be redacted because the information was designated highly confidential under the protective order.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application to redact the referenced information in the plaintiffs’ memorandum and Exhibits B through H. The order does not separately identify the specific redactions approved or state a separate ruling on the plaintiffs’ request that future amended complaints be filed without redactions.
Disposition
The application was granted. This was a filing-sealing and redaction ruling, not a decision on the underlying claims or on the motion for permission to amend the complaints.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.