Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-06221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America, Judge Failla permitted JPMorgan to file a submission under seal and directed termination of the motion.
JPMorgan and the other parties to the case, as well as the court and Clerk of Court. The order concerns the filing and access to confidential exhibits and redacted names.
What happened
In Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan asked to file under seal and in redacted form exhibits supporting its opposition to a request for certain questions about potentially lost evidence.
The request concerned a confidential agreement and redactions identifying certain people involved in the case. The court permitted an unredacted version of the submission to be filed under seal, for viewing only by the parties and the court.
Judge Katherine Failla also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 530. The text does not state any ruling on the underlying request for the additional questions.
The detailed version
- Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:17-cv-06221
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 1, 2022
Background
JPMorgan requested permission to file under seal and in redacted form exhibits attached to its opposition to the plaintiffs' letter-motion seeking permission to serve certain “spoliation-related” interrogatories. Interrogatories are written questions used in discovery, and “spoliation” generally concerns the loss, destruction, or alteration of potentially relevant evidence; the opinion text does not describe the underlying dispute in further detail.
JPMorgan said that one exhibit was the parties' Phone Agreement, which had been designated “highly confidential” under the parties' stipulated protective order. JPMorgan also proposed redacting the names of certain custodians and deponents in another exhibit. The filing stated that sealed versions of three exhibits were being submitted at the same time.
Ruling
The court stated that the unredacted version of the submission may be filed under seal and that it would be viewable only by the parties and the court. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 530. The text provided does not state whether the underlying request to serve the additional interrogatories was granted or denied.
Effect
This order addressed how the submission would be filed and who could view it. It did not, in the text provided, decide the underlying discovery request or resolve the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.