Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Caproni granted an application to seal or redact court materials containing sensitive business information.
Plaintiff Sarah Valelly, defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, non-party Bank of America, N.A., and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated concerned a joint request by plaintiff Sarah Valelly and defendant Merrill Lynch to file some materials under seal or in redacted form. The materials supported Valelly’s request for class certification and responded to Merrill Lynch’s request to exclude expert testimony.
Merrill Lynch and non-party Bank of America, N.A. sought to protect information about Bank of America’s interest-rate methods, the financial effects of rate decisions, and Merrill Lynch account and cash data. Valelly did not oppose most of the requested protections but opposed redacting four quotations, arguing they did not reveal proprietary methods and that possible embarrassment was not enough to justify withholding them from the public.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. The order did not separately identify which documents or quotations would be sealed or redacted.
The detailed version
- Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-07998
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 4, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Sarah Valelly and defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated jointly moved for permission to file certain materials under seal or in redacted form. The materials were submitted in support of Valelly’s motion for class certification and in opposition to Merrill Lynch’s motion to exclude the testimony of Professor Micah Officer. Non-party Bank of America, N.A., which was represented by Merrill Lynch’s counsel, also sought protection for information it had designated confidential or highly confidential under the protective order.
Requested Redactions and Sealing
The request covered three categories of information:
- Bank of America’s interest-rate-setting methodology, including factors used to set rates, competitive analysis, and proposed rate changes;
- Financial analyses concerning the effects of rate decisions, including modeled effects of possible future changes; and
- Merrill Lynch information about cash and accounts in investment accounts, including account balances, cash swept, numbers of accounts, and statement-linked accounts.
The parties stated that the information was not publicly shared and that disclosure could provide competitors with information that might cause competitive harm. The request covered portions of memoranda, declarations, expert materials, deposition transcripts, and exhibits.
Parties’ Positions
Merrill Lynch and Bank of America argued that the requested protections were narrowly tailored and consistent with the Court’s earlier orders approving similar requests. Valelly took no position on most of the requested redactions and sealing while reserving her rights. She opposed redacting four quotations, arguing that the quotations discussed Bank of America’s profit motives rather than its proprietary rate-setting methodology. She also argued that potential embarrassment was not enough to overcome the public’s presumptive right of access to court filings.
Ruling
The Court’s order states: “Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.” Judge Valerie Caproni therefore granted the parties’ application to file the identified materials under seal or in redacted form. The order itself does not separately specify the treatment of each document or the four disputed quotations, and it does not provide a separate explanation of the Court’s reasoning.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.