Emigrant Bank and Pacific Mercantile Bank v. SunTrust Bank et al.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-02391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Emigrant Bank v. SunTrust Bank: Judge Wang granted, partly granted and denied, and denied sealing motions involving documents tied to planned summary-judgment filings.
The ruling affected Plaintiffs Emigrant Bank and Pacific Mercantile Bank, Defendants SunTrust Bank and Truist Bank, the non-party Virgo Entities, and the public’s access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In Emigrant Bank and Pacific Mercantile Bank v. SunTrust Bank et al., the court considered several requests to keep documents and references confidential in an ongoing dispute involving credit agreements and the Virgo Entities. The requests concerned exhibits and filings connected to anticipated motions for partial summary judgment.
The court kept three expert reports permanently sealed because the earlier pre-motion filings had become legally irrelevant after discovery was reopened, making the public-access interest low. For the later filings, it granted Plaintiffs’ sealing motion in part and denied it in part: specified exhibits remained temporarily sealed pending the anticipated summary-judgment motion, but Exhibits 22 through 24 had to be filed without sealing. The court also granted Defendants’ sealing motion and denied Plaintiffs’ motion concerning another exhibit, ordering that filing unsealed.
Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on November 10, 2025. The ruling addressed only public access and confidentiality of court filings, not the underlying claims or the anticipated summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Emigrant Bank and Pacific Mercantile Bank v. SunTrust Bank et al. · No. 1:20-cv-02391
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Emigrant Bank and Pacific Mercantile Bank and Defendants SunTrust Bank and Truist Bank—identified in the opinion as Truist Bank, successor by merger to SunTrust Bank—entered into credit and loan agreements with Non-Party Alchemy LLC. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendants breached their obligations by refusing to sue the Virgo Entities, which Plaintiffs believe are the parent of Calrissian L.P., which in turn is alleged to own Alchemy LLC. The opinion states that the litigation had been ongoing since 2016.
The court addressed four sealing motions involving documents connected to anticipated motions for partial summary judgment. The Virgo Entities sought to keep three expert reports sealed. Plaintiffs sought to seal numerous exhibits to a later pre-motion letter and an exhibit to their reply. Defendants sought to keep their opposition sealed because it contained redacted references to exhibits that were temporarily sealed.
Legal standard
The court explained that documents filed in connection with anticipated summary-judgment motions are judicial documents, meaning that the public generally has a right to inspect them. The strength of that presumption depends on how important the documents are to the court’s work. The court must then balance public access against interests that may justify sealing, including privacy and protection of competitively sensitive business information. The party seeking sealing bears the burden of justification, and any sealing order must be narrowly tailored.
Court’s analysis
For the first set of pre-motion materials, discovery had been reopened and the request to bring the partial-summary-judgment motion had become moot. The court therefore found only a low public-access interest. Because those materials had become a legal nullity, the Virgo Entities’ privacy interests outweighed the minimal presumption of access. The court ordered that ECF Nos. 162-1, 162-3, and 162-5 remain sealed.
For the second set of pre-motion materials, the documents were not moot, so the presumption of public access was stronger. The court concluded that it could not yet create a narrowly tailored permanent sealing order because Plaintiffs had not filed the anticipated partial-summary-judgment motion and it was not clear how the parties would use or rely on the exhibits. The court therefore continued temporary sealing for the specified exhibits pending submission and resolution of that motion.
The Virgo Entities later stated that they had not designated Exhibits 22 through 24 as confidential. The court consequently directed Plaintiffs to file a copy of ECF 223 without sealing those exhibits. The Virgo Entities also stated that Exhibit 9 to Plaintiffs’ reply was not confidential, so the court found no reason to keep that exhibit sealed.
Disposition
The Virgo Entities’ motion at ECF 190 was GRANTED, and ECF Nos. 162-1, 162-3, and 162-5 remain sealed.
Plaintiffs’ motion at ECF 221 was GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. ECF 222 Exhibits 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 17-18, and 21 continue to be temporarily sealed pending the court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ anticipated partial-summary-judgment motion. Plaintiffs were directed to file a copy of ECF 223 without sealing Exhibits 22 through 24.
Defendants’ motion at ECF 229 was GRANTED, and ECF 230 remains sealed pending a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
Plaintiffs’ motion at ECF 232 was DENIED, and ECF 233 was unsealed. The Clerk was directed to unseal ECF 233 and close ECF Nos. 221, 229, and 232.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.