Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2020

Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-10364
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Allianz Global Investors v. Bank Of America, Judge Schofield granted Societe Generale’s request to file a memorandum in redacted form and keep it sealed.

Who this affects

Societe Generale, the parties and counsel identified in the attached appendix, and members of the public seeking access to Docket No. 401.

What happened

Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation involved Societe Generale’s request to file portions of its reconsideration memorandum in redacted form.

The court granted the request and ordered that the document remain sealed and accessible only to the parties and counsel listed in an appendix. The court said public access to judicial documents is not absolute and that confidential business information justified sealing the document.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the June 1, 2020 order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
June 1, 2020

Background

On May 14, 2020, Defendant Societe Generale asked for permission to file portions of its memorandum supporting a motion for reconsideration in redacted form. The request concerned the document at Docket No. 401.

Ruling

The court granted Societe Generale’s request. It ordered that Docket No. 401 remain sealed and accessible only to the parties and counsel identified in the attached appendix. The court explained that the public’s common-law right to access judicial documents is not absolute and must be balanced against competing considerations. It found that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.

Effect

This order addressed access to and filing of a court document. It did not decide the underlying claims or the motion for reconsideration.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.