Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-02985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Schansman v. Sberbank, Judge Carter granted plaintiffs’ request to file an unredacted court filing under seal because it contained confidential third-party bank-record information.
The plaintiffs and VTB Bank PJSC were directly affected by the order; the sealed filing contained confidential bank-record information produced by a nonparty financial institution.
What happened
Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC involved plaintiffs’ request to file an unredacted response to Defendant VTB Bank PJSC’s request concerning a possible appeal under seal. The response related to VTB’s renewed request to seek an immediate appeal of an earlier order denying motions to dismiss.
The filing referred to information that a nonparty financial institution had designated confidential under the case’s protective order. The information concerned bank records of the nonparty’s customers who transferred funds through VTB’s New York correspondent bank. Plaintiffs argued that the confidentiality designation and protective order provided good cause for sealing the material.
The court granted plaintiffs’ request to file the unredacted version under seal. It stated that it would consider VTB’s request for an immediate appeal and plaintiffs’ response later. Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. signed the order on October 19, 2022.
The detailed version
- Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC · No. 1:19-cv-02985
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs asked for permission to file under seal the unredacted version of their response to Defendant VTB Bank PJSC’s letter motion for a pre-motion conference about VTB’s renewed request to certify an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal sought before the entire case is finished. The underlying appeal request concerned the court’s September 30, 2021 order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs said the response referred to material that a nonparty had designated confidential under the case’s protective order. The material came from a third-party financial institution that produced records in response to a subpoena. Plaintiffs stated that the records concerned the bank accounts of the third party’s customers who transferred funds through VTB’s New York correspondent bank. They argued that the protective order required them to file the material under seal and that the confidentiality concern provided good cause for sealing it.
Ruling
The court granted plaintiffs’ request to file the unredacted version of the filing under seal. The court stated that it would consider VTB’s request for an interlocutory appeal and plaintiffs’ response in due course. The order did not decide whether an appeal should be allowed or address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.