UMB Bank, N.A. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-04897
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In UMB Bank v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Judge Furman temporarily restricted filings and deferred the sealing decision without ruling on the underlying request.
UMB Bank, N.A.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; non-party contingent value rights holders whose identifying and financial information appears in the filings; and members of the public seeking access to judicial documents.
What happened
UMB Bank, N.A., acting as trustee under a contingent value rights agreement, asked the court to unseal materials submitted with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s motion to dismiss. UMB argued that the materials were judicial documents subject to public access and that Bristol-Myers Squibb had not shown specific harm supporting continued sealing.
UMB also asked to redact non-party contingent value rights holders’ identifying information and investment amounts, and to keep sealed two documents listing many holders and their financial commitments. Bristol-Myers Squibb opposed public filing of its documents and deposition excerpts before summary judgment and had not agreed to the proposed redactions.
In UMB Bank, N.A. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Judge Jesse M. Furman restricted the proposed-redaction filings to court-view access for the time being, cautioned counsel to handle sensitive filings more carefully, reserved judgment on the sealing merits, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 136.
The detailed version
- UMB Bank, N.A. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company · No. 1:21-cv-04897
- Jesse Furman
- May 15, 2024
Background
UMB Bank, N.A., acting solely as trustee under a contingent value rights agreement, filed a letter opposing Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s request to keep sealed nineteen exhibits and deposition-transcript excerpts submitted with Bristol-Myers Squibb’s motion to dismiss. The materials concerned the application process for Liso-cel. UMB argued that the materials were judicial documents because they were submitted in connection with a potentially dispositive motion and therefore carried a strong presumption of public access.
UMB contended that Bristol-Myers Squibb had identified only hypothetical and unspecified risks involving possible patient information, regulatory communications and strategy, proprietary methods, and trade secrets. UMB also argued that Bristol-Myers Squibb had not explained why narrower redactions would be inadequate, and noted that the information concerned events more than three years earlier.
Requested protection for non-parties
UMB separately requested permission to redact personally identifying information and investment amounts belonging to non-party contingent value rights holders. It also requested sealing two documents that, as a whole, listed the names of hundreds of holders and their financial commitments. UMB stated that these protections were narrowly tailored to protect the holders’ privacy and financial information.
Court’s action
The excerpt does not show a decision on the merits of either party’s sealing position. Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that the court had restricted the proposed-redaction filings to court-view access temporarily, strongly cautioned counsel to exercise more care when handling potentially sensitive filings, and reserved judgment on whether and to what extent the documents should be unsealed pending resolution of the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 136. The excerpt therefore does not state that the documents were unsealed, that Bristol-Myers Squibb’s sealing request was granted or denied, or that UMB’s requested redactions were granted or denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.