In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-06539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers: Judge Furman set procedures for public access, redaction, and sealing of trial exhibits.
The parties and third parties that produced or sought to use trial exhibits were affected, as were members of the public seeking access to those exhibits.
What happened
In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers concerned procedures for exhibits in a bench trial scheduled to begin December 9, 2020.
The order required the parties to identify third-party exhibits, allowed parties and third parties to propose redactions, and set deadlines for submitting revised exhibits or asking the court to seal relevant information. It also addressed documents used during cross-examination that were not on an exhibit list.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that exhibits generally be publicly accessible, while permitting limits on public display when the interests favoring secrecy outweigh the interests favoring access.
The detailed version
- In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers · No. 1:20-cv-06539
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
The court stated that the action was scheduled for a bench trial beginning December 9, 2020. The order established procedures intended to preserve public access to exhibits introduced into evidence during the trial.
Procedures for Third-Party Exhibits
By November 30, 2020, the parties were required to identify to relevant third parties the exhibits on their exhibit lists that those third parties had produced. By December 3, 2020, any party or third party seeking to keep an exhibit sealed or make it public only in redacted form had to identify the exhibit and provide both a redacted copy and a highlighted copy showing the proposed redactions.
If the parties added third-party exhibits after November 30, the parties had to identify those exhibits to the third parties. The third parties then had to provide redacted and highlighted versions within one business day after notice or by December 3, whichever was later.
Non-Relevant Redactions and Sealing Requests
The order stated that court permission was not required when the redacted information was not relevant to the case. The parties were directed to provide revised versions of those exhibits to the court by December 4, as necessary.
When redacted information was relevant to the issues in the case, the party seeking redaction or sealing had to file a letter motion requesting that the exhibit or part of it be sealed by December 7.
Cross-Examination Documents
The parties could use documents during cross-examination that were not included on their exhibit lists. If a party or third party objected to displaying such a document publicly during the examination of a witness, the party seeking to limit disclosure could raise the issue with the court at that time.
The court stated that, if the requesting party demonstrated that the interests favoring non-access outweighed those favoring access, the document would be shown only to the witness, the court, and counsel, without public display on Zoom or other court-ordered technology. Within one business day, the party or third party requesting sealing had to submit a redacted version for the public record.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman entered the order establishing these exhibit-redaction and public-access procedures. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.