Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation, Judge Schofield granted requests to seal filings and required a redacted complaint.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, their counsel identified in the appendix, and public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation, the plaintiffs asked to seal portions of a motion and a proposed Third Amended Complaint.
The court granted both requests. It directed the Clerk to seal one document, kept another document and its attachments sealed, and limited access to the parties and listed counsel. The plaintiffs must re-file the proposed complaint in redacted form by June 8, 2020.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield said redactions were necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information. This order addressed filing access and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
- Lorna Schofield
- June 5, 2020
Background
On June 4, 2020, the plaintiffs requested permission to file under seal portions of their motion for leave to amend and the accompanying proposed Third Amended Complaint. They also filed an emergency letter motion asking to seal the proposed complaint filed in redacted form because of a filing error.
Rulings
The court granted the request at Docket No. 413. It directed the Clerk of Court to seal the document at Docket No. 410-1. Access is limited to the parties and counsel identified in the attached appendix. The plaintiffs must re-file the proposed Third Amended Complaint in redacted form by June 8, 2020.
The court also granted the request at Docket No. 411. The document at Docket No. 412 and its attachments must remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and counsel identified in the appendix.
Reasoning and Effect
The court recognized a common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents, but explained that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against competing considerations. It found that filing the referenced documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. The order concerns sealing and redaction only; the opinion does not resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.