National Credit Union Administration Board v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
- Sidney Stein
- 1:14-cv-08919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In National Credit Union Administration Board v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Judge Stein ordered protections for borrower information and allowed unlinked loan numbers to be filed publicly.
The parties’ summary-judgment filings, borrowers whose nonpublic personal information appeared in the materials, and members of the public seeking access to the court record.
What happened
National Credit Union Administration Board and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. jointly asked the court to control how information would appear in papers supporting their summary-judgment motions. The request concerned borrower information, loan files, and loan numbers.
The parties asked to redact or seal nonpublic personal borrower information, seal entire documents containing large amounts of that information when redaction would be impractical, and publicly file full loan numbers that were not connected to information identifying a borrower.
In National Credit Union Administration Board v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Judge Sidney H. Stein entered a “SO ORDERED” endorsement on May 13, 2022, approving the requested filing arrangements.
The detailed version
- National Credit Union Administration Board v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · No. 1:14-cv-08919
- Sidney Stein
- May 13, 2022
Background
The parties jointly sought permission to redact or seal portions of papers supporting their summary-judgment motions. Their request covered three categories: nonpublic personal borrower information; complete documents containing voluminous amounts of that information; and documents containing full loan numbers that were not connected to information identifying a borrower.
The filing described the borrower information as including personally identifiable information in loan files. It said that some spreadsheets and PDF documents contained this information throughout, making redaction impracticable. It also said that expert reports and legal briefs would publicly present aggregate analyses and discuss any illustrative breach or data point, while the underlying granular materials would remain sealed.
Legal standards and the parties’ arguments
The parties relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a court, for good cause, to protect confidential information. They also cited the presumption of public access to court documents and cases recognizing privacy interests in personal financial information. The filing referred to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s general restriction on financial institutions disclosing nonpublic personal information to unaffiliated third parties.
For loan numbers standing alone, the parties argued that a number without a borrower’s name, address, or other identifying information could not reasonably be used to identify the borrower. They cited decisions that publicly included loan numbers and argued that the rule limiting financial-account numbers in court filings to their last four digits did not apply to these loan numbers under the circumstances presented.
Ruling
The document ends with the parties’ request and a “SO ORDERED” endorsement signed by Sidney H. Stein. The court therefore ordered the requested arrangements: redaction or sealing of nonpublic personal borrower information, sealing of complete documents containing voluminous amounts of that information, and public filing of documents containing full loan numbers when those numbers were not connected to nonpublic personal borrower information. The supplied text does not include a separate explanatory opinion by the court or use a separate “granted” or “denied” ruling label.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.