In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:13-cv-07789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation: Judge Schofield granted sealing motions for letters containing confidential information about nonparties.
The plaintiffs, Credit Suisse, the parties and individuals listed in Appendix A, and nonparties whose confidential information appears in the responsive letters.
What happened
In In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, the plaintiffs and Credit Suisse exchanged letters about anticipated summary-judgment motions.
Both sides asked to redact parts of their responsive letters and file unredacted versions under seal. The letters were filed in connection with those anticipated motions.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted both sealing motions, kept the unredacted letters sealed, and limited access to the parties and people listed in an appendix. The court said sealing was necessary to protect confidential information about people and entities who were not parties to the case.
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, the plaintiffs and Credit Suisse each filed a letter about an anticipated motion for summary judgment. On November 5, 2020, each side filed a responsive letter. Each side also asked to redact portions of its responsive letter and to file an unredacted version under seal.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the parties’ motions to seal at Docket Nos. 1533 and 1536. The unredacted version of Credit Suisse’s responsive letter, filed at Docket No. 1537, and the unredacted version of the plaintiffs’ responsive letter, filed at Docket No. 1535, will remain sealed. Only the parties and the individuals identified in Appendix A may access those documents.
The court explained that the public has a strong common-law right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. The court concluded that filing the documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential information related to nonparties. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 1533, 1534, 1535, and 1536.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.