In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:17-cv-00916
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Global Brokerage Securities Litigation: Judge Abrams granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal specified filings, exhibits, and briefing.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the securities litigation, as well as public access to the specified filings and exhibits.
What happened
In In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs asked the court to seal parts of their filings opposing defendants’ summary-judgment motion and motions concerning expert testimony. They also sought to seal listed exhibits and related documents.
The plaintiffs said the materials contained confidential documents, expert reports, deposition transcripts, and references to those materials. They relied on a confidentiality order entered in the case and said their proposed redactions were narrow; defendants did not object.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application and ordered the requested sealing. The text does not identify which specific portions were ultimately sealed beyond the materials described in the plaintiffs’ motion.
The detailed version
- In re Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:17-cv-00916
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 10, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion asking the court to seal portions of several filings and specified exhibits. The requested materials related to three matters: (1) the plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment; (2) the plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to exclude the reports, testimony, and opinions of John E. Barron; and (3) the plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to exclude the reports, testimony, and opinions of Adam Werner.
The materials included portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum, their statement of additional material facts, their responses to defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts, and listed exhibits to Joshua Baker’s declaration. The plaintiffs also sought to seal portions of the briefing concerning the two expert-exclusion motions.
Arguments and Legal Standard
The parties had entered a confidentiality order approved by the court on July 24, 2019. The order provided that confidential discovery material attached to, quoted in, or referenced in court filings would be subject to the court’s requirements for filing documents under seal.
The plaintiffs stated that the proposed sealed materials consisted of documents and expert reports marked confidential, confidential deposition transcripts, and descriptions or quotations from those materials. They said no public version of the documents was available, and argued that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and necessary to preserve privacy expectations under the confidentiality order. The plaintiffs also stated that the parties had conferred and that defendants did not object.
The letter discussed the common-law right of public access to court records and the principle that sealing may be appropriate when that right is outweighed by considerations such as privacy concerns or judicial efficiency. The text does not provide a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning beyond granting the application.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ application to seal. The order states: “Application granted. SO ORDERED.” It does not state that the application was granted in part or denied in part, and it does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.