U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-04044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In U.S. Bank v. Triaxx, Judge Moses denied the Trustee’s motion to seal a letter-brief and ordered the unredacted filing unsealed.
The Trustee and the TAM Parties were affected by the order, which required public access to the unredacted letter-brief and disclosed the payment information at issue.
What happened
In U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC, the Trustee asked to seal the unredacted version of a letter-brief. The Triaxx-related parties sought continued secrecy for information about money sent to an affiliate outside the agreed payment process.
The court found that the letter-brief was a court filing presumed to be publicly accessible. It said the payment information was relevant to the parties’ request for additional money to pay legal fees, a possible request by their lawyers to withdraw for nonpayment, and claims scheduled for trial. The Triaxx-related parties did not identify specific disadvantages from disclosure that could overcome public access.
The court denied the Trustee’s motion to seal and ordered the unredacted letter-brief unsealed. Judge Barbara Moses also directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket 451, which had been resolved during a telephone conference, and the motion at Docket 455.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC · No. 1:18-cv-04044
- Barbara Moses
- Feb. 7, 2023
Background
The Trustee filed a letter-motion seeking to seal the unredacted version of a February 1, 2023 letter-brief. The Trustee had redacted two small portions because the TAM Parties had designated the underlying information as confidential during discovery. The TAM Parties later stated that they sought continued sealing only for the portion revealing the amount of money that TAM directed to its affiliate Phoenix from the Recoveries outside of the Waterfall.
The TAM Parties argued that this information was unrelated to their pending request to release funds held in escrow to pay their legal fees and was confidential. The court construed the request for release of funds as a request for preliminary injunctive relief and described it as dispositive.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that the letter-brief was a judicial document, meaning a court filing to which a presumption of public access applies. It found that the TAM Parties’ resources, including the sums paid to Phoenix from the Recoveries, were relevant to their request for additional funds. The information could also be relevant to a future motion by their counsel seeking permission to withdraw because of nonpayment.
The court further stated that the payments to Phoenix outside of the Waterfall, and the circumstances surrounding those transactions, were central to several claims scheduled for trial on April 17, 2023. Confidentiality designations made during discovery therefore did not by themselves justify continued sealing.
The TAM Parties referred generally to disadvantages that disclosure would cause but did not describe those disadvantages. The court concluded that they had not identified countervailing factors sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access and had not provided the specific factual findings needed to justify continued sealing.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses denied the Trustee’s February 1 letter-motion to seal the unredacted letter-brief. The court ordered the unredacted letter-brief at Docket 456 unsealed. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket 451, which the court said had been resolved during that afternoon’s telephone conference, and Docket 455.
Disposition
The sealing motion was denied, and the unredacted filing was ordered unsealed. This order addressed access to a court filing; it did not decide the merits of the claims scheduled for trial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.