Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 30, 2020

In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:17-cv-00916
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In re Global Brokerage Securities Litigation: Judge Moses granted defendants’ application to seal Exhibit A because it contained nonpublic financial information about nonparties.

Who this affects

The ruling keeps Exhibit A from public access and protects the apparently nonpublic financial information of the nonparty Holder Parties who signed the Forbearance Agreement.

What happened

In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation concerns defendants’ request to keep Exhibit A from public view. The exhibit was a confidential Forbearance Agreement involving parties who could be part of a proposed notes class.

Defendants said the agreement was confidential discovery material, had been marked confidential, and was not publicly available. They told the plaintiffs about the request, and the plaintiffs did not object.

Judge Barbara Moses granted the application. She found that although the agreement was a court filing relevant to the judicial process, sufficient countervailing factors supported sealing it, including the fact that it was signed by nonparties and appeared to reveal their nonpublic financial information.

The detailed version

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

Case
In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:17-cv-00916
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Oct. 30, 2020

Background

Defendants asked the court to seal and redact in its entirety Exhibit A to their response to the plaintiffs’ supplemental submission. Exhibit A was a confidential Forbearance Agreement signed by several “Holder Parties,” some of whom would be part of the proposed Notes Class addressed in the plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification.

The agreement had been produced in the case in redacted form, marked “Confidential,” and was not otherwise available to the public. The parties’ discovery confidentiality order provided that confidential discovery material attached to or referenced in court filings was subject to the court’s requirements for filing documents under seal. The plaintiffs did not object to defendants’ request.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. A judicial document is a filing relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court determined that the Forbearance Agreement qualified as a judicial document, but that the presumption of public access could be overcome by adequate countervailing factors.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses granted the application to seal. The court found that adequate countervailing factors justified sealing, including that the agreement was signed by nonparties and would reveal apparently nonpublic financial information about them.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.