Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Caproni granted Merrill Lynch’s request to redact confidential rate-setting information from Valelly’s expert-evidence reply.
Merrill Lynch and non-party Bank of America, N.A. received permission to redact confidential business information from Valelly’s reply memorandum; Valelly’s filing will not be publicly available in entirely unredacted form.
What happened
In Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Merrill Lynch asked to file in redacted form Valelly’s reply supporting her request to exclude the defendant’s expert testimony. The proposed redactions concerned information that Merrill Lynch and non-party Bank of America, N.A. had designated confidential.
Merrill Lynch and Bank of America said the material described nonpublic rate-setting factors, competitive analysis, and forecasting methods. They argued that disclosure could allow competitors to make pricing decisions that would harm Bank of America. Valelly took no position on the request while reserving her rights.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application on March 5, 2024. The order authorized the requested redactions, although the opinion text does not reproduce the specific redacted passages.
The detailed version
- Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-07998
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
Merrill Lynch moved for permission to file in redacted form Valelly’s reply memorandum supporting her motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Merrill Lynch’s proposed expert. A motion to exclude expert evidence is commonly called a Daubert motion. The request followed the parties’ previously approved sealing procedures.
Merrill Lynch and non-party Bank of America, N.A. asked to redact limited portions of the reply that referred to confidential or highly confidential business information. They identified information concerning Bank of America’s methodology for setting interest rates, including the specific factors considered in setting rates, as well as competitive analysis and forecasting methodology. They stated that the information was not shared with the public or competitors and that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Valelly took no position on the requests while reserving all rights. The filing also stated that the same information had been the subject of earlier redaction and sealing motions in this case, which the court had granted.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni marked the application “GRANTED” and ordered, “SO ORDERED,” on March 5, 2024. The ruling permitted the requested filing in redacted form. The provided text does not identify each redacted passage or separately explain the court’s reasoning beyond the parties’ submissions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.