Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 20, 2021

Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-10364
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Allianz Global Investors v. Bank of America: Judge Schofield granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal confidential business information.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the individuals identified in the appendix are affected by the access restriction. The unredacted opposition remains sealed and is available only to the parties and those identified individuals.

What happened

In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation, the plaintiffs asked to seal an unredacted version of their opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

The court said sealing was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information. The opinion did not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to seal. The unredacted opposition will remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and individuals listed in an appendix; the Clerk was directed to close the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 20, 2021

Background

On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs requested permission to redact and file under seal an unredacted version of their opposition to the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The request was filed at Docket No. 627, and the unredacted opposition was filed at Docket No. 628.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that the public has a strong but not absolute right to access judicial documents. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. The court found that filing the document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The unredacted opposition at Docket No. 628 will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix will have access. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 627. This order addressed sealing and did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.