Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2022

Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-10364
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Allianz Global v. Bank of America, Judge Schofield granted a request to seal unredacted papers supporting defendants’ request for evidence from Denmark.

Who this affects

The ruling affects the defendants seeking international evidence, including Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and concerns confidential materials produced by plaintiffs and personal information about proposed witnesses.

What happened

In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation, defendants sought permission to file unredacted versions of supporting papers and exhibits under seal. The papers supported an unopposed request for international judicial assistance to obtain evidence in Denmark.

The materials included chat transcripts and other documents that plaintiffs had designated confidential, as well as personal information about proposed witnesses. Public versions had already been filed with redactions, while the unredacted versions were submitted under seal for counsel of record to access.

The court granted the request. Judge Lorna Schofield’s order states that the sealing requests were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business information.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
June 16, 2022

Request and materials

Defendants asked for permission to file under seal unredacted versions of supporting papers and exhibits for their unopposed motion seeking an international judicial-assistance request under the Hague Convention to obtain evidence in Denmark. The request concerned materials that had been publicly filed in redacted form.

The papers included or quoted chat transcripts and other documents that plaintiffs had designated as confidential. They also contained personal information about proposed witnesses. The unredacted versions were filed under seal and made accessible to counsel of record, while the public versions remained redacted.

Ruling

The court granted the sealing request. It found that the proposed sealing requests were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information. Judge Lorna Schofield’s supplied case metadata identifies her as the judge, although the opinion text is addressed to and identifies Hon. Stewart D. Aaron.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.