Phoenix Light SF DAC v. The Bank of New York Mellon
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-01194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Phoenix Light SF DAC v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Judge Caproni granted BNYM’s request to redact targeted expert-report materials.
The Bank of New York Mellon was permitted to redact specified portions of expert reports and four internal documents; Phoenix Light SF DAC could file specified materials in redacted form, and the redactions limited public access to those portions.
What happened
Phoenix Light SF DAC and The Bank of New York Mellon were involved in a request about documents that would be filed with upcoming motions concerning expert testimony. The Bank of New York Mellon asked to redact portions of three expert reports and four internal documents discussing its master-servicing practices. Phoenix Light did not object to the requested redactions, although it did not join parts of the request.
The request argued that the expert reports were exchanged during discovery and were not judicial documents, meaning they were not entitled to a presumption of public access. It also argued that the requested redactions were limited and would protect confidential business practices without impairing the public’s understanding of the motions.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application. The order therefore permitted the requested targeted redactions; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or the admissibility of the expert testimony.
The detailed version
- Phoenix Light SF DAC v. The Bank of New York Mellon · No. 1:18-cv-01194
- Valerie Caproni
- May 8, 2020
Background
The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) asked the court for permission to redact specified portions of three expert reports and four internal BNYM documents that would be filed as exhibits to anticipated motions concerning expert testimony. The requested materials concerned BNYM’s master-servicing practices. The reports and documents were identified as:
- Section V(B) of Marcel A. Bryar’s August 8, 2019 expert report; - Section VIII of Ingrid Beckles’s corrected January 31, 2020 expert report; - Exhibit 6 to Bryar’s October 3, 2019 expert rebuttal report; and - Four identified internal BNYM documents underlying portions of the expert analysis.
Phoenix Light did not join parts of BNYM’s letter but did not object to the redaction request and asked for permission to file the specified documents in redacted form if the request was granted.
Legal Standard and Arguments
The request discussed the two-step access analysis from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga: first, whether the materials are “judicial documents,” and second, what weight should be given to any presumption of public access. The letter argued that expert reports are non-dispositive discovery materials exchanged among the parties and are only previews of the opinions an expert may give. It further argued that reports filed for a motion concerning expert admissibility are not judicial documents because the court is acting as a gatekeeper for potentially admissible expert evidence rather than deciding the merits of the parties’ dispute.
The letter also argued that the proposed redactions were narrowly targeted at sections and documents describing BNYM’s business practices. It asserted that public access would provide little benefit, while confidentiality would protect BNYM’s business interests, and that the redactions would not meaningfully interfere with understanding the motions.
Ruling
The endorsed order states: “Application GRANTED.” Judge Valerie E. Caproni therefore granted the application for the requested targeted redactions. The order did not rule on the underlying claims, the merits of the dispute, or whether the expert testimony would ultimately be admissible.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.