Cynthia Warmbie v. The Bank of New York Mellon
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-09468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Cynthia Warmbier v. The Bank of New York Mellon: Judge Schofield granted Plaintiffs’ request to seal the case and future filings.
The plaintiffs’ filings, the case docket, and access by people other than the plaintiffs and court staff were affected; the miscellaneous matter was closed.
What happened
In Cynthia Warmbier v. The Bank of New York Mellon, the plaintiffs asked to file their civil action, documents, and docket under seal. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.
The court found that sealing was necessary to protect higher values and that good cause had been shown. It ordered the motion and related documents to remain sealed and required all future filings to be filed under seal.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion, restricted access to the order, and directed the Clerk to close the miscellaneous matter.
The detailed version
- Cynthia Warmbie v. The Bank of New York Mellon · No. 1:22-cv-09468
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion, meaning a motion made without advance notice to the opposing party, asking to file a civil action under seal. The opinion identifies The Bank of New York Mellon as the garnishee defendant but does not describe the underlying claims or dispute.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that filing the plaintiffs’ proposed sealed petition and all further documents under seal, and sealing the docket, was necessary to preserve higher values. It also found good cause and stated that the sealing order was consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file the civil action under seal. The court ordered the motion, supporting memorandum, and all related documents to remain under seal pending further order. It also ordered that all future filings be submitted under seal pending further order. The Clerk of Court was directed to restrict access to the order to the selected party viewing level, with access for the plaintiffs and court staff, and to close the miscellaneous matter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.