The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation

Background

The parties jointly submitted a letter concerning documents that a party or third party believed should remain sealed or redacted. The letter followed the court’s September 21, 2023 Opinion and Order and earlier temporary orders concerning sealing and redaction requests.

The parties acknowledged that the materials were judicial documents, meaning documents filed in connection with court proceedings to which a presumption of public access applies. They relied on the legal standard requiring the court to balance public access against competing interests, including privacy and the protection of higher values.

Requested Sealing and Redactions

The plaintiffs identified several types of information they sought to keep sealed or redacted:

- Damage and related figures from the reports of plaintiffs’ expert Professor William Schwert. - Commercially sensitive information about third parties obtained through document and deposition subpoenas. - Internal financial matters of the named plaintiffs contained in confidential discovery material. - Information concerning financial strategies and performance, interest-rate swap agreements and confidential terms, and commercially sensitive strategy and compliance information.

The defendants identified requests involving:

- Confidential internal processes, procedures, and strategies. - Information about confidential government investigations that regulators had not publicly disclosed. - Commercially sensitive third-party information obtained through document and deposition subpoenas. - Information concerning rate-setting processes, swap agreements, costs and pricing, inventory, client development and market position, client advice and pricing, fees, and other confidential business information.

The parties also stated that some of the plaintiffs’ earlier redaction requests had been withdrawn.

Ruling

Based on a spot check of selected documents, the court approved the parties’ requests to seal or redact documents. The court directed the parties, within one week, to ensure that documents affected by withdrawn requests were placed on the docket consistently with the court’s endorsement. The parties could do this by refiling the documents in modified form or by filing a letter identifying any document that could be unsealed in its entirety.

Judge Jesse Furman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 463. This order addressed access to and redaction of filed documents; the provided opinion text does not resolve the underlying claims.