Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-02985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Schansman v. Sberbank, Judge Gorenstein granted unopposed applications to keep certain discovery filings under seal.
VTB Bank PJSC and the parties whose memoranda and exhibits contained VTB-designated confidential information; access to those redacted materials remains restricted.
What happened
In Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC, parties asked the court to keep memoranda and exhibits under seal because they contained information that VTB Bank PJSC had designated confidential under a protective order.
The court treated the filed materials as documents presumptively open to the public, but said that presumption was weak in a discovery dispute. VTB argued that communications between regulators and regulated entities were inherently sensitive and that sealing would protect the regulatory process. The applications were unopposed.
Judge Gorenstein ruled that the arguments supported sealing and granted the applications. The redacted portions of the identified memoranda and exhibits will remain under seal, and the clerk did not need to take further action.
The detailed version
- Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC · No. 1:19-cv-02985
- Andrew Carter
- May 12, 2023
Background
While briefing the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, the court received applications to keep memoranda and exhibits under seal. The materials contained information that defendant VTB Bank PJSC had designated confidential under a protective order. The applications were filed at Docket Nos. 477, 493, and 496.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied a three-part test governing requests to seal judicial documents. It determined that the materials filed to brief the discovery motion were “judicial documents,” meaning documents to which a presumption of public access attaches. But the court found that the presumption was not strong in the context of a discovery dispute.
VTB identified the sensitive nature of communications between regulators and the entities they regulate. VTB also argued that sealing would protect the integrity of the regulatory process, comparing the circumstances to the domestic bank-examination privilege. Because the presumption of access was weak, VTB had presented a substantial argument for sealing, and no party opposed the applications, the court found that the burden for sealing had been met.
Ruling
The court granted the applications at Docket Nos. 477, 493, and 496 to maintain under seal the redacted portions of the referenced memoranda and exhibits. The documents were already sealed, so the clerk was not required to take any action. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.