The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America, Judge Furman temporarily granted the parties’ motion to seal materials related to class-certification and expert-testimony filings.
The parties, third parties whose confidential information appears in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to those court materials.
What happened
In The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, the parties asked to file portions of their class-certification opposition, motion to exclude expert testimony, expert reports, and supporting exhibits under seal or with redactions. They said the materials contained sensitive business information, plaintiffs’ financial information, and confidential information belonging to third parties.
The requested protection covered information about defendants’ pricing and rate-setting methods, inventory practices, market strategies, fees, internal procedures, and confidential investigations. It also covered plaintiffs’ financial strategies, interest-rate swaps, and an expert’s estimates concerning alleged rate inflation and class damages.
Judge Jesse Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He said the court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 392.
The detailed version
- The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01608
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 17, 2023
Background
The parties sought permission to file portions of briefing and supporting materials under seal or in redacted form. The materials concerned the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony. The request was made under a prior stipulation and order governing redactions and sealing for the class-certification briefing. The parties had discussed the proposed redactions with one another, and no party opposed another party’s requests.
Materials at Issue
The proposed redactions and sealed filings included portions of the defendants’ opposition to class certification, the defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony, expert reports, declarations, deposition testimony, and exhibits. The defendants identified information concerning their pricing methods, rate-setting processes, inventory levels and limits, treatment of bonds they could not remarket, comparisons with competitors, client-development strategies, fees, costs, internal strategy, compliance procedures, client advice, and confidential government investigations.
The plaintiffs sought protection for information concerning their financial strategies and performance, the confidential economic terms of their interest-rate swaps, and sensitive portions of an expert report estimating the effect of the defendants’ alleged rate inflation and the initial amount of class damages. The defendants also sought to protect confidential business and personal information belonging to third parties.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. The order states that the court will assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 392. This order addressed access to the filings; it did not decide the class-certification motion or the motion to exclude expert testimony.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning sealing and redaction of court materials. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the pending class-certification and expert-testimony issues.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.