Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank of America Corporation, Judge Aaron granted Citi’s request to file sensitive materials under seal.
The Citigroup defendants and counsel of record; the sealed papers concern confidential materials and personal information about proposed deponents.
What happened
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank of America Corporation, the Citigroup defendants asked to file unredacted supporting papers and exhibits under seal. The materials supported a request for international court assistance to obtain evidence in the Netherlands.
The proposed sealed materials included chat transcripts and other documents labeled confidential or highly confidential under a protective order, as well as personal information about proposed witnesses. Public versions had already been filed with redactions.
The court granted the request, finding that the proposed sealing was narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business information. The order was entered by Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The detailed version
- Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
- Lorna Schofield
- June 16, 2022
Background
The Citigroup defendants—Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc.—asked the court for permission to file certain supporting papers and exhibits under seal. The papers supported Citi’s motion seeking a Hague Convention request for international judicial assistance to obtain evidence in the Netherlands.
The request concerned unredacted versions of documents that had been publicly filed with redactions. The documents included or quoted chat transcripts and other materials that the parties had designated as confidential or highly confidential under a protective order. They also contained personal information about proposed deponents, meaning people who might give testimony in the proceeding. The unredacted versions were filed under seal and made accessible to counsel of record.
Ruling
The court stated: “Request GRANTED.” It found that the proposed sealing requests were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information, and it ordered the documents to be filed in redacted form on the electronic docket and in unredacted form under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.