Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-09300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ request to seal specified filings and close a related motion.
The parties and the individuals listed in Appendix A were permitted access to the specified sealed docket entries; public access to those entries was restricted. The order also closed the motion at Dkt. No. 715.
What happened
In Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the parties asked to seal limited portions of papers supporting or opposing the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and the parties’ expert-witness motions. They also asked to seal deposition testimony designated highly confidential under a confidentiality order.
The requested materials concerned confidential information about how banks set retail foreign-exchange rates, including pricing information and business strategies. The parties said their proposed redactions were limited so that most of the filings would remain publicly available.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application for substantially the reasons stated in the parties’ letter. The Clerk was directed to keep the specified docket entries under seal, limit access to the individuals listed in Appendix A, and close the motion at Dkt. No. 715.
The detailed version
- Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:15-cv-09300
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
The parties jointly sought permission to file under seal limited portions of submissions concerning the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the parties’ motions involving expert testimony. They also sought protection for certain deposition testimony that had been designated “Highly Confidential” under the existing confidentiality order.
The requested material included information about trading and investment strategies, pricing and cost information, customer lists, business strategy, trade secrets, and other commercial or financial information. More specifically, the parties identified confidential information about how each bank sets retail foreign-exchange rates for purchases of physical foreign currency at its United States retail branches. They stated that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and would leave most of the submissions publicly available.
Ruling
The court granted the application for substantially the reasons stated in the parties’ letter. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain the documents at Dkt. Nos. 718, 720, 723, 725, 726, 727, 733, 735, 738, 740, 743, 748, 751, and 753 under seal, with access limited to the individuals listed in Appendix A. The Clerk was also directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 715.
This was a sealing and docket-management ruling. It did not decide the merits of the class-certification motion, the expert-witness motions, or the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.