Rosa M. v. Bank of Nova Scotia
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:14-cv-01459
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosa M. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Judge Caproni ordered plaintiffs to state whether they object to publicly filing unredacted materials.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the litigation, because the order governed whether confidential portions of the defendants’ court filings would remain sealed or become publicly available.
What happened
In Rosa M. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, defendants asked the court to keep redacted portions of a legal memorandum and exhibits under seal. The materials had been designated confidential under a protective order.
The court directed plaintiffs to say by February 12, 2021, whether they objected to filing unredacted versions publicly. If they objected, they had to explain why the redactions were justified and could propose narrower redactions. The order did not expressly grant or deny the defendants’ request to seal.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni also allowed defendants to respond by February 19, 2021, if they wished. The order emphasized the public’s presumptive right to access court filings.
The detailed version
- Rosa M. v. Bank of Nova Scotia · No. 1:14-cv-01459
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
The defendants—including The Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Société Générale, and The London Gold Market Fixing Limited—asked the court to seal redacted portions of their January 29, 2021 memorandum supporting a motion to take depositions of Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz and Gustavo Bamberger, along with exhibits B through E.
The request relied on a January 18, 2017 protective order. That order provided that confidential or highly confidential discovery materials filed with the court, and filings that disclosed those materials, would be filed under seal until the court issued a further order. The materials attached to the memorandum had been designated confidential by plaintiffs and previously filed under seal.
Court’s directives
The court ordered plaintiffs to inform it by February 12, 2021, whether they objected to filing unredacted versions of the memorandum and exhibits at docket entry 509 on the public docket. If plaintiffs objected, they had to explain why the proposed redactions were justified despite the presumption of public access to court records recognized in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The court also said plaintiffs could propose narrower redactions, but would have to show that those redactions overcame the presumption of access.
The court encouraged the parties to consult its earlier endorsements at docket entries 480 and 494. It allowed defendants to reply to plaintiffs’ letter by February 19, 2021, if defendants chose to do so.
Disposition
Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered the directives and marked the matter “SO ORDERED.” The opinion text does not expressly state that the court granted or denied the defendants’ sealing request; instead, it required plaintiffs to state their position and set deadlines for any further submissions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.