The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America, Judge Furman temporarily granted the parties’ motion to seal materials filed with class-certification briefing.
The plaintiffs, defendants, third parties whose information appeared in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to the court materials were affected. The order temporarily restricted public access to specified materials through sealing or redaction.
What happened
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America, the parties asked to file parts of their class-certification briefing and supporting materials under seal or with redactions. The materials included confidential business information, third-party information, and financial estimates.
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. The court said it would decide later whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when it ruled on the underlying motion.
Judge Jesse Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 367. This order did not decide the class-certification motion or the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01608
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 5, 2022
What the parties requested
The plaintiffs asked for permission, on behalf of all parties, to file the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the request to appoint class counsel, expert reports, and related exhibits with certain information redacted or filed under seal. The parties had previously agreed to a process for redacting and sealing materials connected to the class-certification briefing. The filing stated that no party opposed another party’s sealing or redaction requests.
Materials at issue
The requested redactions or sealing covered several categories of information, including:
- Defendants’ pricing methods, rate-setting processes, and information used to set rates; - Information about defendants’ variable-rate demand obligation inventory, inventory limits, costs, yields, and pricing; - Summaries of swap agreements; - Defendants’ internal strategy, compliance decisions, and client-development strategies; - Confidential business and personal information provided by third parties during discovery; and - Financial figures in an expert report concerning the alleged inflation of variable-rate demand obligation rates and an initial estimate of class damages.
The parties argued that disclosure could harm defendants’ competitive position or commercially harm third parties. They also acknowledged that the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. It stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. Thus, the order did not make a final determination that all requested sealing or redactions would remain in place. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 367. The order did not decide the motion for class certification or the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.