U.S. Bank, National Association v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-11059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In U.S. Bank v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, Judge Woods denied two motions to seal briefing and an exhibit, requiring unredacted refiling.
The plaintiffs, the DAF Parties, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. The plaintiffs must refile the specified materials in unredacted form.
What happened
In U.S. Bank, National Association v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P., the plaintiffs asked to seal or redact filings connected to their motion to dismiss the DAF Parties’ amended counterclaims. The filings were a supplemental opening brief, an exhibit, and a supplemental reply brief.
The court said these materials were judicial documents, meaning they were filed with the court and relevant to its work. Although the presumption favoring public access was low, the plaintiffs still had to explain specifically why sealing was necessary. Their statements that the materials contained information marked confidential under the protective order were not enough.
Judge Woods denied the plaintiffs’ two motions to seal and denied permission to file the materials with redactions or under seal. He directed the plaintiffs to refile the brief, exhibit, and reply in unredacted form by April 25, 2024, and directed the clerk to terminate the motions.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank, National Association v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P. · No. 1:21-cv-11059
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 17, 2024
Background
On January 10 and January 27, 2024, the plaintiffs filed two motions to seal materials connected to their briefing on a motion to dismiss the DAF Parties’ amended counterclaims. The requested materials were:
- A supplemental opening brief supporting the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss;
- An exhibit to the declaration of Misha Boutilier supporting that brief; and
- A supplemental reply brief.
The materials had been filed in public, redacted form and also in restricted, party-view-only form.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-step framework for sealing court filings. First, it determines whether the material is a judicial document—one filed with the court that is relevant to the court’s judicial function. Second, it determines the weight of the presumption that the material should be accessible to the public. Third, it identifies legitimate reasons for confidentiality and balances those reasons against the presumption of access.
The court determined that the brief, exhibit, and reply were judicial documents. It found that the presumption of public access was low, but the plaintiffs still had to provide a particularized explanation showing why sealing was necessary. The court’s protective order required a specific justification for filing confidential discovery material under seal. The plaintiffs’ letters merely stated that the filings included or discussed material designated as confidential under the protective order. The court held that this assertion was insufficient and did not comply with the protective order or the court’s individual rules.
Ruling
Judge Woods denied the plaintiffs’ motions to seal at Docket Nos. 238 and 248. He also denied the plaintiffs’ requests for leave to file the opening brief with redactions, the exhibit under seal, and the reply with redactions. The plaintiffs were directed to refile all three materials in unredacted form on the docket no later than April 25, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.