Turnbull v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Background

JPMorgan Chase & Co. asked the court to seal limited portions of Turnbull’s second amended complaint and enter a protective order. The request concerned allegations describing what Turnbull purportedly told JPMorgan’s counsel during an October 7, 2019 internal interview.

According to JPMorgan’s filing, the interviews were conducted to gather facts for legal advice. JPMorgan asserted that the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. JPMorgan also stated that Turnbull had been told the communications were privileged, that the privilege belonged to JPMorgan, and that Turnbull could not waive it.

Requested relief

JPMorgan asked the court to require Turnbull to re-file the second amended complaint under seal and redact paragraphs 67 through 70 before filing the pleading publicly. JPMorgan also requested an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and a protective order permitting the parties to redact information about Turnbull’s privileged communications with JPMorgan’s counsel from public filings and file unredacted versions under seal.

Turnbull declined to join the requests, but his counsel represented that Turnbull would not oppose them. Turnbull’s counsel also stated that non-opposition did not mean Turnbull agreed that the allegations involved privileged or confidential communications or waived any argument concerning that issue.

Ruling

The document bears the notation “APPLICATION GRANTED,” along with Judge John G. Koeltl’s signature. The supplied text does not contain a separate judicial explanation or specify whether each requested form of relief—including the temporary seal, permanent sealing, redactions, and protective order—was granted. The ruling concerns sealing and confidentiality rather than the merits of Turnbull’s underlying claims.