Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Allianz v. Bank of America, Judge Schofield kept a filing under seal after finding an adequate showing and noting a redacted version was public.
The ruling affects the parties to the case, the confidential information concerning current or former employees identified in ECF No. 710, and public access to that filing.
What happened
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation concerns a request to keep a court filing containing sensitive confidential information under seal. Counsel for Standard Chartered Bank said the filing had been mistakenly submitted publicly and included information designated highly confidential under a protective order.
The court kept ECF No. 710 under seal and noted that a redacted version had been publicly filed as ECF No. 711.
Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that an adequate showing had been made and ordered that ECF No. 710 remain under seal.
The detailed version
- Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 24, 2020
Background
Counsel for defendant Standard Chartered Bank submitted a letter asking the court to formally seal a joint submission filed as ECF No. 710. The letter said the submission had mistakenly been filed with sensitive confidential information. The information had been produced to the plaintiffs under a protective order and had been designated highly confidential.
The request relied on the principle that public access to court documents is not absolute. It also cited privacy interests, business secrecy, prior approval of employee-name redactions, and the court's authority to issue protective orders for good cause. Counsel said a redacted version had also been submitted for public filing.
Ruling
Judge Lorna Schofield found that an adequate showing had been made and ordered that ECF No. 710 remain under seal. The court noted that a redacted version of that filing had been publicly filed as ECF No. 711. The opinion text does not state that the court sealed any other filing or entered any broader ruling about future redactions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.