Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank

Background

The case involves claims against Cairo Amman Bank under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Plaintiffs allege that the bank aided and abetted terrorist attacks attributed to Hamas between 2000 and 2004 by providing banking services to Hamas-affiliated customers. After jurisdictional discovery, the bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. A report and recommendation on that motion was to be issued separately.

The motions decided in this opinion concerned whether to seal materials filed in connection with that dismissal motion. Cairo Amman Bank sought to seal portions of its brief and exhibits. Plaintiffs sought to seal portions of their opposition brief, an exhibit, and portions of Michael Radine’s declaration describing the exhibit.

Legal standard

The court explained that filed materials relevant to the court’s work are “judicial documents,” which carry a presumption of public access under the common law and the First Amendment. Materials filed with a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss, receive a particularly strong presumption of access. A party seeking to seal such material must show that countervailing interests—such as personal privacy, safety, attorney-client privilege, or protection of competitively sensitive information—outweigh public access, and the requested sealing must be narrowly tailored.

The court also held that a protective order or a party’s confidentiality designation does not reduce the presumption of public access once discovery materials are filed with the court as part of a dispositive motion.

Application

The court determined that the materials were judicial documents and that the strong presumption of public access applied. It rejected the argument that the presumption was weaker because the information had been exchanged during discovery or produced under protective orders.

The information the parties sought to seal included names of people and entities involved in wire transfers, transfer amounts, transaction records, and customer account statements. The court found that the parties had not shown meaningful harm from disclosing this approximately 20-year-old financial information. It stated that the names appeared in public filings, the transfer amounts did not reveal sensitive personal details, and much of the information concerned entities that no longer existed or accounts that were reportedly closed. The court also found that sealing portions of Radine’s declaration would not protect a higher value because those portions were only an attorney’s summary of financial records.

The court recognized a privacy and safety interest in limited account-identifying information. It allowed redaction of account numbers, routing numbers, and electronic identifying numbers for accounts that were still active or open. It also allowed similar limited redactions for identifying information that could pose a real safety risk to Cairo Amman Bank’s customers.

The court found that Plaintiffs’ memorandum supporting their sealing motion appeared to have been filed under seal inadvertently and did not appear to contain confidential information, so it should be unsealed.

Disposition

The motions to seal were granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, they were denied except to the extent exhibits contained account numbers, routing numbers, or electronic identifying numbers for active or open accounts. The court directed that Cairo Amman Bank’s moving brief, Plaintiffs’ opposition brief, Plaintiffs’ sealing memorandum, and Radine’s declaration be unsealed, while specified exhibits could remain sealed temporarily pending public filing with the permitted limited redactions.

The parties were ordered to publicly file the exhibits with only the permitted redactions by July 17, 2023. The court stated that if they did not do so, it would direct that the documents be unsealed. This opinion did not resolve Cairo Amman Bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.