Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:16-cv-03228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., Judge Willis denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to remove redactions, directing them to seek disclosure through Federal Reserve procedures.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., concerning redacted documents that may contain confidential supervisory information.
What happened
In Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., the plaintiffs asked the court to remove redactions they said were too broad. The defendants said the redactions protected confidential supervisory information and were required by federal and New York financial-regulator rules.
The court reviewed sample documents privately to determine whether they raised confidential-supervisory-information concerns. It found that they might, and directed the plaintiffs to use the Federal Reserve Board’s procedures to request permission to disclose the documents.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the motion without prejudice. The plaintiffs may return to the court if the Federal Reserve Board denies disclosure, and the parties were told to coordinate to move the process along.
The detailed version
- Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA · No. 1:16-cv-03228
- Alvin Hellerstein
- July 25, 2022
Background
On July 7, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking removal of redactions that they asserted were overbroad. The defendants responded that the redactions protected confidential supervisory information (CSI) and were required by regulations of the Federal Reserve Board and the New York Department of Financial Services. The defendants also stated that those regulations provided a disclosure procedure that the plaintiffs had not followed.
After a July 12 hearing, the court ordered production of sample documents for in camera review, meaning private judicial review outside the presence of the parties, to determine whether CSI concerns existed. The documents were produced, and the court reviewed them.
Ruling
The court found that the documents may contain CSI. It directed the plaintiffs to use the Federal Reserve Board’s procedures to request disclosure. If the Federal Reserve Board denied disclosure, the plaintiffs could return to the court seeking relief. The court also expected the parties to coordinate if the defendants had already begun the process or contacted the Board.
The motion was DENIED without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.