Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram International, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-03256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram International, Judge Failla granted plaintiffs’ application to temporarily seal specified exhibits and redact related information.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the State of New York, MoneyGram International, Inc., and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc.; the order also concerns public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State of New York asked to temporarily seal seven exhibits and redact related information from their opposition to MoneyGram’s motions to transfer the case and dismiss it.
The requested materials included documents MoneyGram had identified as trade secrets and documents submitted during the Bureau’s confidential supervisory process. The plaintiffs said temporary sealing would give MoneyGram time to seek a protective order, while they did not seek permanent sealing.
Judge Failla granted the application and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 34. The order was dated September 19, 2022.
The detailed version
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. MoneyGram International, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03256
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State of New York filed a letter motion asking to temporarily seal certain documents and redact corresponding information in their opposition to the defendants’ motion to transfer venue and motion to dismiss.
The requested documents were Exhibits B, C, E, I, J, K, and L to a declaration by Bureau investigator Kathleen Nolan. The plaintiffs stated that Exhibits I and L had been produced during the Bureau’s investigation and designated by the defendants as containing trade secrets. Exhibits B, C, E, J, and K had been produced during the Bureau’s confidential supervisory process.
Parties’ Request
The plaintiffs asked to file the exhibits temporarily under seal and to redact related portions of their opposition brief. They stated that the temporary restrictions would comply with federal regulations governing the Bureau and allow the defendants an opportunity to seek a protective order. The plaintiffs also stated that they did not believe the exhibits should be sealed permanently.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 34. The order did not state that the documents were permanently sealed or add a separate ruling on permanent sealing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.