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 of Russia PJSC, Judge Carter granted plaintiffs’ request to file an opposition under seal because it contained confidential third-party bank records.
The plaintiffs, VTB Bank PJSC, the non-party financial institution that produced the records, and the institution’s customers whose bank records were referenced.
What happened
In Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC, the plaintiffs asked to file the unredacted version of their opposition to VTB Bank PJSC’s renewed request for reconsideration under seal.
The plaintiffs said the filing referred to information that a third-party financial institution had designated confidential under the case’s protective order. The information concerned bank records of customers who transferred funds through VTB’s New York correspondent bank.
Judge Carter granted the request to file the unredacted opposition under seal. The order addressed confidentiality of court filings and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC · No. 1:19-cv-02985
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 9, 2022
Motion and ruling
The plaintiffs moved for permission to file under seal the unredacted version of their opposition to Defendant VTB Bank PJSC’s renewed motion for reconsideration. The court granted the request.
Reason for sealing
The plaintiffs stated that the opposition referred to material a non-party financial institution had designated confidential under the case’s protective order. That material consisted of bank records concerning customers who transferred funds through VTB’s New York correspondent bank. The plaintiffs said the protective order required them to file the material under seal and that the confidentiality concern provided good cause for limiting public access to the discovery material.
Effect of the order
Judge Carter granted the plaintiffs leave to file the identified unredacted opposition under seal. This order concerned the filing of confidential material and did not resolve the renewed motion for reconsideration or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.