East West Bank v. Shanker
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-07364
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In East West Bank v. Shanker, Judge Orrick granted a temporary stay pending arbitration rulings and denied East West Bank’s sealing request.
East West Bank, Sukeert Shanker, and Aeldra Financial, Inc.; the case was paused pending the court’s arbitration rulings, while existing injunction, discovery, and mediation obligations continued.
What happened
In East West Bank v. Sukeert Shanker, et al., Sukeert Shanker and Aeldra Financial, Inc. asked the court to pause the case while it decided whether the claims must be handled through arbitration. East West Bank did not oppose the request.
The court granted the temporary stay until it ruled on the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. The defendants still had to follow the existing preliminary-injunction and discovery orders, and the parties had to continue mediation. After the arbitration rulings, the parties were required to discuss whether new case deadlines were needed.
East West Bank also asked to keep parts of the temporary-stay motion sealed because they described its employee arbitration agreement and dispute-resolution policies. Judge William H. Orrick denied that request and ordered the clerk to make the identified document public.
The detailed version
- East West Bank v. Shanker · No. 3:20-cv-07364
- William Orrick
- Aug. 31, 2021
Background
Defendants Sukeert Shanker and Aeldra Financial, Inc. moved for a temporary stay, meaning a pause in the case, while the court resolved whether the claims were arbitrable—eligible or required to be decided through arbitration. East West Bank did not oppose the motion.
East West Bank separately sought to seal the motion for a temporary stay and related material. It argued that the material contained commercially sensitive information about its employment policies, including its employee dispute-resolution process and arbitration agreement. East West Bank said disclosure could reveal to competitors the terms governing its relationship with employees.
Temporary stay
The court granted the defendants’ motion for a temporary stay. The action would remain stayed until the court ruled on the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration.
The stay did not relieve the defendants of their obligations under the existing preliminary-injunction order or the order compelling discovery. The parties also had to continue participating in ongoing mediation. Within 14 days after the court ruled on the motions to compel arbitration, the parties had to meet and confer and, if necessary, submit a joint statement about whether previously set deadlines were needed and propose deadlines for the same matters.
Sealing request
The court explained that court records are presumed accessible to the public and that a party seeking to seal them must overcome that presumption. It found that the information East West Bank identified did not contain trade secrets or confidential information. The information concerned ordinary features of arbitration agreements, such as whether discovery is allowed and whether an arbitrator may consider dispositive motions. The court also found it unclear how disclosure would harm East West Bank’s competitive position and noted that East West Bank cited no supporting authority for sealing this type of information.
The court therefore denied East West Bank’s administrative motion to seal the motion for a temporary stay and ordered the clerk to unseal Docket No. 120-4.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.