City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:14-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In City of Providence v. Bats Global Markets, Judge Furman ordered specified documents kept sealed or redacted after reviewing nonparties’ requests.
The nonparty subpoena recipients seeking continued sealing or redaction—Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Jefferies & Company LLC, Jefferies LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., BofA Securities, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.—and members of the public seeking access to the identified filings.
What happened
City of Providence v. Bats Global Markets involved requests by nonparty subpoena recipients to keep certain documents filed in the case from being fully public. The documents included declarations and exhibits containing information the recipients described as confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive, or personal.
The recipients asked the court to keep some documents entirely sealed and to permit public versions of others with redactions. One request concerned data that Barclays said was not relevant to the case because it had been filed with a motion that was denied as moot.
Judge Jesse M. Furman concluded that the identified documents should remain sealed or appear in redacted form for substantially the reasons stated in the recipients’ earlier requests. He also directed the Clerk to terminate the listed electronic docket entries.
The detailed version
- City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-02811
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 25, 2022
Background
Nonparty subpoena recipients Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Jefferies & Company LLC, Jefferies LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., BofA Securities, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. had previously asked the court to keep certain confidential information under seal. The court had temporarily granted those requests while reserving the question whether the materials should remain sealed or instead be publicly filed in redacted form.
The recipients submitted a joint letter in response to the court’s April 12, 2022 order. They asked the court to keep specified exhibits to a declaration filed in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under seal or to permit redacted public versions. The documents were described as containing confidential or proprietary information, commercially sensitive information, personal information, or information concerning business systems and related data. Barclays also argued that one document was not relevant to the action because it had been filed in connection with a motion that had been denied as moot.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court considered whether the documents could be kept under seal, in whole or in part, under the standards cited from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Olson v. Major League Baseball. It concluded that the documents identified in pages 2 through 4 of the joint letter should be maintained under seal or in redacted form as indicated in that letter and the corresponding requests. The court did not issue a ruling on the underlying claims or class-certification dispute. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 839, 841–844, 848, 853, 857, and 859. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.