City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:14-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Judge Furman granted a sealing application and ordered several filings unsealed or terminated.
The NYSE defendants, the plaintiff, non-party NYSE customers whose names appeared in the filings, and the public’s access to specified court records.
What happened
In City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange defendants asked the court to redact customer names from one filing and keep another filing sealed.
They argued that the customer names were irrelevant to the discovery dispute, competitively sensitive, and subject to customer privacy interests. They also argued that the other filing contained information protected by attorney-client privilege and should remain sealed while the parties disagreed about whether related documents had lost that protection.
Judge Furman granted the application. He directed the Clerk to make ECF Nos. 545, 545-1, 545-3, and 545-5 publicly viewable and to terminate ECF Nos. 544 and 568.
The detailed version
- City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-02811
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
The New York Stock Exchange defendants—New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., now known as NYSE Chicago, Inc.—filed a motion to seal under the court’s March 11, 2021 order. They requested redactions of customer names on pages 3, 4, and 9 of ECF No. 545-4, and asked that ECF No. 545-2 remain sealed.
Arguments in the Letter Motion
The NYSE defendants argued that the customer names were not relevant to the discovery dispute. They also argued that customer identities and the products or services customers used were competitively sensitive, and that non-party customers had privacy interests in preventing public disclosure of their identities.
Regarding ECF No. 545-2, the NYSE defendants said the email concerned a request for information from counsel to help provide legal advice in responding to an investigation. They maintained that the email should have been withheld in full as privileged rather than produced in redacted form. They said the parties had not reached an agreement about whether related documents could be treated as covered by a waiver of privilege, so the email should remain sealed to preserve the privilege claim.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman marked the application “GRANTED.” The Clerk was directed to unseal—that is, convert to public view with no restrictions—ECF Nos. 545, 545-1, 545-3, and 545-5. The Clerk was also directed to terminate ECF Nos. 544 and 568. The order does not separately state in its ruling text whether ECF No. 545-2 remained sealed, although the application requested that result.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.