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
- 2
In City of Providence v. Bats Global Markets, Judge Furman directed CMIA and defendants to file proposed redactions for documents containing CMIA’s confidential information.
Non-party Columbia Management Investment Advisors, LLC; its client whose investment information was included in the documents; defendants; and the public’s access to the relevant court filings.
What happened
In City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc., non-party Columbia Management Investment Advisors, LLC (CMIA) asked the court to keep certain subpoenaed materials under seal. CMIA said the materials contained a client’s private investment information and CMIA’s proprietary and trade-secret information.
CMIA explained that the materials appeared in documents filed under seal by attorneys for The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. It also said the materials did not appear relevant to the court’s March 28, 2022 decision, based on CMIA’s review of that decision.
Judge Furman directed CMIA to coordinate with defendants and file versions of the relevant documents with proposed redactions by April 28, 2022. The text does not expressly state that the request to keep the materials under seal was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-02811
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 25, 2022
Background
CMIA, a non-party, produced documents in response to a subpoena served by attorneys for The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. CMIA had designated some of those documents as confidential under a stipulated protective order filed on February 10, 2020.
CMIA’s counsel stated that NASDAQ’s attorneys notified CMIA that documents filed under seal included information from an expert report referring to confidential information in CMIA’s documents. CMIA sought continued sealing of references to that information. It identified two categories of information: private information about an investment belonging to one of CMIA’s clients, and CMIA’s proprietary and trade-secret information concerning methods and procedures for processing client trades.
CMIA’s Position
CMIA acknowledged the common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It argued that the privacy interests of its client and the protection of CMIA’s proprietary information outweighed public access in this circumstance. CMIA also stated that, after reviewing the court’s March 28, 2022 Opinion and Order, it did not see references to the portions of the expert report that allegedly contained CMIA’s confidential information. The letter therefore assumed that the material was not relevant to the court’s decision and was not of public interest.
Court’s Directive
The text ends with a directive that CMIA coordinate with defendants to file versions of the relevant documents containing proposed redactions no later than April 28, 2022. The directive also required CMIA and defendants to consult and comply with Section 7 of Judge Furman’s Individual Rules. That section requires, among other things, a party seeking permission to maintain a document in redacted form to publicly file a copy showing the proposed redactions and separately file an unredacted copy under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted.
The provided text does not expressly say that CMIA’s request to keep the materials under seal was granted or denied. This is a procedural order concerning access to and redaction of court filings, not a decision on the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.