In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:13-cv-07789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation: Judge Schofield granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal a pre-motion letter and restrict access to its unredacted versions.
The order affects the plaintiffs and defendants, non-parties whose confidential information appears in the letter, the people listed in Appendix A who may access the unredacted filings, and members of the public seeking access to those filings.
What happened
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation concerned plaintiffs’ request to redact confidential information from a letter anticipating a summary-judgment motion. The letter had been temporarily sealed after defendants designated some information as confidential or highly confidential.
Plaintiffs asked to file a redacted version, and defendants supported that request. The court found that redaction was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential information related to people or entities not involved in the case.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The unredacted letters will remain sealed, access is limited to the parties and people listed in Appendix A, and the clerk was directed to close four related motions.
The detailed version
- In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:13-cv-07789
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 6, 2020
Background
On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a pre-motion letter anticipating a motion for summary judgment. The letter was filed at Docket No. 1518. Plaintiffs later reported that the letter included information Defendants had designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under a confidentiality stipulation and order. The letter was therefore placed temporarily under seal.
The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a letter motion seeking permission to file a redacted version. Plaintiffs filed that motion regarding portions of the pre-motion letter, and Defendants filed a letter supporting it.
Ruling
The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. It ordered that the unredacted versions of the pre-motion letter filed at Docket Nos. 1518 and 1525 remain sealed. Access is limited to the parties and the individuals identified in Appendix A.
The Court explained that the public has a longstanding but not absolute right to inspect judicial documents. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. Here, the Court found that filing a redacted version was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential information related to non-parties.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 1520, 1522, 1523, and 1525. This order addressed sealing and access to court filings; it did not decide the anticipated summary-judgment motion or the underlying antitrust claims.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.