The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America, Judge Furman temporarily granted the parties’ motion to redact sensitive materials while considering the underlying motions.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the cited court filings were affected by the temporary sealing order.
What happened
In The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, the parties asked to file parts of expert-motion papers with confidential information redacted. The materials included defendants’ inventory information and plaintiffs’ financial calculations concerning alleged artificial inflation of variable-rate demand obligation rates and estimated class damages.
The parties argued that disclosure could harm defendants’ competitive position and reveal sensitive financial information from plaintiffs’ expert reports. They agreed that the materials were court records generally presumed open to the public, but asked the court to balance that presumption against the claimed commercial and financial harm.
Judge Jesse Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motions, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 440.
The detailed version
- The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01608
- Jesse Furman
- June 22, 2023
Background
The parties sought permission to file portions of defendants’ reply memorandum supporting their motion to exclude expert testimony and related documents with redactions. The requested materials included the reply memorandum and the Hubbard Reply Report, which was an exhibit to a supporting declaration.
The defendants sought to protect information about inventory levels for specific CUSIPs. The submission stated that disclosure could allow competitors to evaluate the defendants’ risk limits and inventory systems and adjust their own processes. The plaintiffs sought to redact numerical figures from Professor Schwert’s expert reports that were quoted in the defendants’ reply papers. Those figures concerned the alleged artificial inflation of VRDO rates and Professor Schwert’s initial estimate of class damages.
The parties stated that they had met and conferred about the proposed redactions and that no party opposed another party’s request. They also acknowledged that the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. They argued that commercially sensitive business information and sensitive financial figures justified redaction under the standards cited in the submission.
Ruling
Judge Jesse Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The order did not make a final decision about continued sealing or redaction. Instead, the court stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 440.
Effect of the Order
The order temporarily restricted public access to the specified materials while the underlying motions remained under consideration. The opinion text does not state the final result of any request to keep the materials sealed or redacted.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.