Newman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-06948
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Newman v. JPMorgan Chase, Judge Furman temporarily granted Chase’s request to seal materials about its electronic-transfer procedures.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Sari E. Newman; the order temporarily restricts public access to Chase’s policies, procedures, and related filings.
What happened
Newman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. involves Sari E. Newman’s claim that unauthorized electronic transfers totaling $46,975 were made from her Chase savings account to another account in her name.
Chase asked to seal its policies, procedures, and related documents that it planned to submit in support of a motion for summary judgment. Chase said the materials were confidential trade secrets and could help others bypass its fraud-investigation systems; Newman’s counsel consented.
Judge Jesse Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He said the court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motions, and directed the clerk to terminate the sealing request from the docket.
The detailed version
- Newman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:22-cv-06948
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
Sari E. Newman asserted a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act concerning alleged unauthorized Automated Clearing House transfers from her Chase savings account between January and April 2022. The transfers totaled $46,975 and went to an account in Newman’s name at Aspiration Financial.
Chase stated that it intended to seek summary judgment based on the statute’s bona fide error defense. That defense concerns whether a bank had a compliant process reasonably intended to avoid the alleged error. During discovery, Newman requested documents concerning Chase’s procedures for avoiding the error, complying with the statute, and handling notice of unauthorized electronic transfers.
Motion to Seal
Chase had produced its policies and procedures under a protective order. It asked permission to file under seal the procedures, an affidavit referring to them, and portions of its legal memorandum that cited or quoted them. Chase characterized the materials as confidential trade secrets and proprietary information describing its fraud-investigation steps, internal systems, and processes. Chase argued that disclosure could allow someone outside the case to circumvent those procedures and commit fraud. Newman’s counsel consented to the request.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when deciding the underlying motions. Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the clerk to terminate the sealing request from the docket. The excerpt does not contain a final ruling on whether the materials will remain sealed or be redacted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.