Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2021

In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:13-cv-07789
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
22
Civil ProcedureAntitrust
In one sentence

In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation: Judge Schofield granted a motion to seal specified summary-judgment materials and restricted access.

Who this affects

The parties and the individuals identified in the appendix are affected because access to the document filed at Docket No. 1594 is limited to them; the sealing protects confidential business and personal information.

What happened

In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation involved the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and a joint request to keep some filing materials from public view.

The court granted the motion to seal. The document filed at Docket No. 1594 will remain sealed, and access is limited to the parties and the individuals identified in an appendix.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield explained that restricting access was necessary to protect confidential business information and personal information, including information covered by foreign data-privacy rules. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 1593.

The detailed version

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

Case
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:13-cv-07789
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 28, 2021

Background

The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment under the Court’s prior order. They later filed a joint motion to seal portions of those motions and related materials. The opinion addresses only the sealing request, not the underlying antitrust claims or the cross-motions for summary judgment.

Court’s analysis

A sealing order restricts public access to court filings. The court stated that the common-law right of access to judicial documents is not absolute and that courts must balance that right against competing interests. Here, the court found that filing the referenced document in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information and personal information, including information concerning individuals subject to foreign data-privacy regimes.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to seal. The documents filed at Docket No. 1594 will remain sealed, and only the parties and the individuals identified in the attached appendix will have access. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 1593. This order did not decide the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment or the merits of the antitrust litigation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 22-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.