Falberg v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-09910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Falberg v. Goldman Sachs: Judge Ramos granted requests to redact documents and keep Exhibit 38 sealed.
The plaintiff, the defendants, current and former Goldman Sachs employees, other third parties, and the third party whose confidential fee information appears in Exhibit 38 were affected by the sealing and redaction order.
What happened
In Falberg v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., the defendants asked to redact personal information, commercially sensitive information, and material unrelated to the dispute from the plaintiff’s class-certification filings. The plaintiff took no position on the requests.
The defendants also asked that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38 remain sealed because it contained a third party’s confidential fee information. They argued that the proposed redactions and sealing would protect personal privacy, business information, and material not useful to the court’s decision.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ request and the plaintiff’s motion to file certain documents under seal. He permitted redactions from the plaintiff’s brief, ordered the parties to re-file the exhibits with redactions by May 13, 2021, and directed that Exhibit 38 remain sealed until the defendants updated the court about the third party’s position.
The detailed version
- Falberg v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09910
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 10, 2021
Background
The defendants asked the court to allow redactions from the plaintiff’s brief supporting class certification, identified as Document 84, and from accompanying exhibits. The requested redactions covered information that could identify current and former Goldman Sachs employees and other third parties, competitively sensitive pricing and financial information, and information about mutual funds and other investment options that were not at issue in the action. The plaintiff took no position on the requests.
The defendants also asked that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38 remain under seal because it contained a third party’s confidential fee information. They argued that the requested redactions and sealing were justified by privacy interests, protection of commercially sensitive business information, and the fact that some material was unrelated to the issues before the court. They also argued that much of Exhibit 10, consisting of Retirement Committee meeting minutes, was not relevant to the court’s work and should receive targeted redactions.
Ruling
Judge Ramos granted the defendants’ request and the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file certain documents under seal. The court permitted the redactions from Plaintiff’s brief, Document 84. It directed the parties to re-file the exhibits with redactions by May 13, 2021. Exhibit 38 was to remain under seal until the defendants provided an update about the third party’s position on confidentiality. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion identified as Document 81.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.