Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Caproni granted Merrill Lynch’s application to redact confidential rate-setting information from a public transcript.
Merrill Lynch, non-party Bank of America, N.A., the plaintiff, and members of the public seeking access to the transcript.
What happened
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Merrill Lynch asked the court to approve limited redactions to a public transcript from a January 28, 2022 conference. The company said the transcript contained confidential and competitively sensitive information about Bank of America’s rate-setting methods.
Merrill Lynch argued that disclosure could give competitors information that might harm its competitive position. It also told the court that the plaintiff did not take a position on the requested redactions. The court had previously approved the same redactions when the transcript was submitted with the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application. The excerpt does not identify the specific portions redacted or provide additional reasoning for the ruling.
The detailed version
- Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-07998
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 16, 2022
Background
Merrill Lynch submitted a letter motion asking the court to approve narrow redactions to the public transcript of a January 28, 2022 conference. The requested redactions concerned confidential business information produced in the litigation by non-party Bank of America, N.A. The letter described the information as involving rate-setting methodology and said that disclosure could allow competitors to disadvantage Merrill Lynch.
The letter stated that the court had already approved filing the transcript with the same redactions when it was used as an exhibit to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Merrill Lynch also stated that it had sent the proposed redactions to plaintiff’s counsel and that the plaintiff took no position on them.
Legal basis presented
Merrill Lynch relied on the principle that the public’s right to access court documents is not absolute. It argued that protecting confidential business information could outweigh public access and that the proposed redactions were limited to the sensitive information. These arguments were presented by Merrill Lynch in its motion; the excerpt does not contain a separate legal analysis by the court.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application. The court’s order does not describe the exact redactions or separately explain its reasoning. The submission stated that, if the application were granted, the unredacted transcript would remain under seal and a public version would reflect the requested redactions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.