Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-09300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Judge Schofield granted sealing requests in part and denied them in part without prejudice, requiring narrower redactions.
The parties and the public: the order allowed limited protection for competitively sensitive pricing information, required narrower and better-supported redactions for other material, and kept existing sealed documents sealed temporarily.
What happened
In Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the parties asked to seal limited portions of papers supporting and opposing the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. They said the materials included confidential information about how defendant banks set retail foreign-currency prices.
The court agreed that narrowly tailored redactions protecting competitively sensitive pricing information were justified. But the parties had not explained why information about government-set fines should be redacted or why entire exhibits covering other topics should remain sealed.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application in part and denied it in part without prejudice. She ordered each party to file a renewed sealing motion by February 10, 2023, with less-redacted documents and specific explanations for any remaining redactions; meanwhile, the clerk was directed to keep the currently sealed documents sealed.
The detailed version
- Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:15-cv-09300
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
The parties jointly sought permission to file under seal limited portions of their papers supporting and opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The requested sealing covered memoranda of law, statements of undisputed facts under Local Rule 56.1, and certain exhibits.
The parties relied on a confidentiality order covering information such as trading and investment strategies, pricing and cost information, customer lists, business strategies, trade secrets, and other commercial or financial information. They specifically identified confidential information about how the defendant banks set retail foreign-exchange rates for purchases of physical foreign currency at their United States retail branches.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized that public access to judicial documents is not absolute. It concluded that redactions were justified where they were narrowly tailored to protect competitively sensitive information about how the defendant banks set retail foreign-currency prices, because the defendants’ confidentiality interest outweighed the presumption of public access in this instance.
The court found the request insufficient in two respects. First, the parties gave no explanation for seeking to redact information about how the government set the amounts of fines imposed on certain defendants. Second, they provided no justification for filing entire exhibits under seal when those exhibits covered subjects beyond the competitively sensitive information described above.
Disposition
The court granted the application in part and denied it in part without prejudice. Each party was ordered to file a renewed letter motion to seal by February 10, 2023. The renewed submissions must attach more lightly redacted versions of documents that can be filed partly on the public docket and specifically explain why any remaining redactions are narrowly tailored to protect a confidentiality or other interest that outweighs public access. Until then, the clerk was directed to maintain under seal all documents already filed under seal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.