Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:17-cv-03139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Contant v. Bank of America, Judge Schofield denied class counsel’s request to seal claim calculations, without prejudice.
Class counsel and the public’s access to the court filing; the currently sealed documents remain sealed pending a possible renewed request.
What happened
In Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation, class counsel asked to seal portions of a reply brief concerning disbursement of interest earned on settlement funds. The proposed redactions were limited to claim calculations.
The court explained that judicial documents generally have a presumptive right of public access. Sealing requires specific findings showing that it is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly limited. The court found that class counsel had not made that showing.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the sealing request without prejudice to renewal. Class counsel may submit a renewed request by June 20, 2023, and the currently sealed documents will remain sealed while a possible renewed request is considered.
The detailed version
- Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:17-cv-03139
- Lorna Schofield
- June 15, 2023
Background
Class counsel filed a letter motion seeking permission to seal portions of a reply memorandum supporting the plaintiffs’ motion for disbursement of interest income earned on settlement funds. Counsel said the proposed redactions were limited to claim calculations. Counsel planned to file an unredacted brief under seal and a redacted version with exhibits on the public docket.
Legal standard
The court stated that judicial documents generally carry a presumptive right of public access. That right is not absolute, but a court may seal documents only after making specific findings on the record that sealing is essential to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. Examples of potentially sufficient higher values include attorney-client privilege, law-enforcement interests, and the privacy interests of innocent third parties.
Ruling
The court held that class counsel had not explained how sealing the redacted information would protect a sufficiently important interest to overcome the presumption of public access. Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore denied the motion without prejudice to renewal. Class counsel may file a renewed request by June 20, 2023, with an explanation sufficient under Second Circuit law. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 594 and maintain the currently sealed documents under seal pending a possible renewed motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.