Connolly v. Deutsche Bank AG
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-09811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Connolly v. Deutsche Bank AG, Judge Furman set unsealing and motion-to-dismiss deadlines without deciding the lawsuit’s merits.
Matthew Connolly, Deutsche Bank AG, the Government, and any party seeking to maintain redactions in the amended complaint were affected by the order’s unsealing procedure and briefing deadlines.
What happened
In Connolly v. Deutsche Bank AG, the court addressed whether the amended complaint should remain sealed and set a schedule for the defendant’s response and any motion to dismiss.
The court said it assumed the amended complaint should be unsealed in full because of a prior order and the general presumption that court records are public. A party or the Government could object to unsealing or request continued redactions by March 24, 2023. The court also adopted the parties’ proposed schedule for the defendant to answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on its earlier motion.
Judge Furman ordered the defendant’s filing by April 3, 2023, set deadlines for any opposition and reply, and stated that the amended complaint would be unsealed without further notice if no objection or request was filed. The order did not decide the merits of the lawsuit or the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Connolly v. Deutsche Bank AG · No. 1:22-cv-09811
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 22, 2023
Order
The court addressed the public filing status of the amended complaint and the schedule for the defendant’s response to the complaint and any motion to dismiss.
Unsealing the Amended Complaint
In light of Judge McMahon’s March 14, 2023 order and the presumption that court records should generally be available to the public, the court assumed that the amended complaint should be unsealed in its entirety. Any party or the Government could file an objection or request to keep a redaction by March 24, 2023. If no objection or request was filed, the amended complaint would be unsealed in full without further notice.
Briefing Schedule
The court adopted the parties’ proposed schedule for the motion to dismiss. By April 3, 2023, Deutsche Bank AG had to file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a filing stating that it relied on its previously filed motion to dismiss. If it filed a new motion, any opposition was due within four weeks or by May 1, 2023, whichever came first. Any reply was due within three weeks after the opposition or by May 22, 2023, whichever came first.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued an order establishing these deadlines and the procedure for possible unsealing. The order did not rule on the merits of the claims or decide the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.