Milliner v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd.
- James Donato
- 3:15-cv-01763
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Milliner v. Bock Evans, Judge Donato granted NFS’s motions to seal documents and retain confidentiality for specified commercial and customer financial records.
National Financial Services, the non-party customers whose financial information was at issue, the plaintiffs, and public access to the specified documents.
What happened
In Milliner v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd., non-party National Financial Services asked to seal documents and keep certain discovery documents confidential.
The documents included a clearing agreement with Mutual Securities, Inc., and financial records concerning non-party customers who had not agreed to disclosure. NFS withdrew some other confidentiality designations after documents were redacted.
The court found good cause to protect the documents and granted both motions. Judge Donato concluded that disclosure could cause competitive harm or expose customer financial information.
The detailed version
- Milliner v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. · No. 3:15-cv-01763
- James Donato
- Mar. 27, 2020
Background
Non-party National Financial Services (NFS) filed two administrative motions: one to file documents under seal and another to retain confidentiality over documents produced during discovery. The court described the action as dormant and said the discovery motion was unrelated to the merits of the case.
The documents still at issue were a clearing agreement between NFS and Mutual Securities, Inc. (MSI), and three categories of financial records relating to NFS customers who had not consented to disclosure. NFS had withdrawn confidentiality designations for other documents that had been sufficiently redacted, including financial records of consenting customers represented by plaintiffs’ counsel.
Legal standard
For documents connected to a non-dispositive motion, a motion that does not resolve the merits of the case, the court applies a “good cause” standard. The same standard applies to a motion to maintain confidentiality under a protective order. The party seeking protection must show that the material is legally protectable and that the request is narrowly tailored.
Court’s analysis
The court found that NFS made a particularized showing that disclosure of its highly negotiated clearing agreement with MSI could cause competitive harm. The plaintiffs argued that the agreement was already publicly available, but the court noted that their cited agreement was a nine-year-old agreement involving a different firm.
The court also found that customer financial information could be protected. NFS showed that additional redaction would not sufficiently protect customers who had not consented to disclosure. The court noted that Securities and Exchange Commission regulations supported keeping the records and information confidential.
Ruling
The court granted NFS’s administrative motion to file documents under seal. It also granted NFS’s motion to retain confidentiality for its clearing agreement with MSI and records containing financial information of non-parties who had not consented to disclosure. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.