Dinosaur Financial Group LLC v. CUSIP Global Services
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-01860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dinosaur Financial Group LLC v. CUSIP Global Services, Judge Failla terminated a pending motion concerning sealed exhibits.
The defendants seeking to seal exhibits, the plaintiffs who consented to sealing Exhibits 1 through 3, and members of the public whose access to the exhibits was at issue.
What happened
In Dinosaur Financial Group LLC v. CUSIP Global Services, the defendants asked to file four exhibits under seal in support of their motion to dismiss. The exhibits included subscription agreements containing business and pricing information and excerpts from a privately sold standards document.
The plaintiffs consented to sealing the first three exhibits. The defendants argued that the documents contained confidential commercial information and that sealing them would balance public access with the parties’ business interests.
Judge Failla directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, docket the endorsement in the related case number identified in the order, and terminate another pending motion. The text does not expressly state that the motion to seal was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Dinosaur Financial Group LLC v. CUSIP Global Services · No. 1:22-cv-01860
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 15, 2023
Background
Defendants S&P Global, Inc., the American Bankers Association, and FactSet Research Systems, Inc. submitted a letter requesting permission to file four exhibits under seal in support of their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs consented to sealing Exhibits 1 through 3.
Requested Sealing
Exhibits 1 through 3 were subscription agreements between the plaintiffs and CUSIP Global Services. The defendants said the agreements were still in force and contained confidential business information, including the licensees’ requested data-download volumes, intended business uses, and pricing information. The defendants also asked to seal Exhibit 4, which consisted of excerpts from the American National Standard for Financial Services ANSI X9.6-2020 Technical Report and Guide. They said that document was copyrighted, not publicly available, and sold through the ANSI Web Store.
The defendants relied on the Second Circuit’s three-step approach to sealing judicial documents: determining whether the materials are relevant to the judicial function, assessing the weight of the public-access presumption, and balancing that presumption against confidentiality interests and potential business harm. They also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits protection against disclosure of trade secrets and confidential commercial information. The letter stated that the defendants had not sought to seal their motion because it did not quote confidential information from Exhibits 1 through 3 and referred only to a policy statement from publicly available materials.
Court Action and Disposition
The endorsement states that the clerk of court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket 89, docket the endorsement in the case identified as 22 Civ. 1929, and terminate the pending motion at docket entry 73 in that case. The opinion text does not expressly state whether the motion to seal was granted or denied. It also does not provide a merits ruling on the underlying claims or the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.