In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:13-cv-07789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation: Judge Schofield ordered defendants to oppose proposed redactions by May 13, 2021.
The parties, including Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Credit Suisse Defendants, were affected by the filing deadline and requirements for opposing proposed redactions.
What happened
In In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, the parties filed competing requests to hide portions of papers supporting or opposing their summary-judgment motions. The Credit Suisse Defendants proposed redactions, while Plaintiffs proposed narrower redactions.
The court ordered Defendants to file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ narrower redactions by May 13, 2021. Any opposition had to explain why broader redactions or sealing were justified despite the strong presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the summary-judgment motions or finally decide whether the materials should be sealed. This order set a deadline and required a revised chart explaining any request for broader secrecy.
The detailed version
- In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:13-cv-07789
- Lorna Schofield
- May 3, 2021
Background
The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Credit Suisse Defendants then filed a letter motion asking to seal portions of the parties’ papers supporting or opposing those motions. Their letter said Plaintiffs intended to propose narrower redactions than the Credit Suisse Defendants had proposed.
Plaintiffs separately filed a letter motion seeking to seal portions of the same papers and proposing narrower redactions than those proposed by the Credit Suisse Defendants.
Order
The court ordered Defendants to file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ narrower proposed redactions by May 13, 2021. Any opposition had to include a revised version of the chart in Plaintiffs’ filing, adding a column explaining why Defendants believed broader redactions or sealing were warranted in light of the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. It also did not finally decide whether the challenged portions of the papers should be sealed or redacted. It addressed the next filing deadline and the information Defendants had to provide if they opposed Plaintiffs’ narrower proposals.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.