In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:2013cv07789 - Document 1870 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER granting 1676 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 1683 Letter Motion to Seal. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion to seal is GRANTED. The documents filed at Docket No. 1677 and 1684 shall remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals id entified in the attached Appendix will have access. Although "[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," this right is not absolute, and courts "must balance competing considerations against" the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ("[T]he de cision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case."). Filing the documents with redactions in that redacted for m is necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of personal information, including personal information pertaining to individuals subject to foreign data privacy regimes. Filing the deposition transcripts under seal is necessary to prevent th e disclosure of confidential business information that was not relied upon by any party or the Court in briefing or deciding the instant motion and thus is subject to a weaker presumption of public access, but is included in the exhibits only beca use it is adjacent to the relevant portions. Filing the excerpts under seal rather than in redacted form is necessary to avoid speculation and misleading inferences about what might be redacted, particularly because the public will have access to des criptions of any relevant material in the parties' memoranda of law and the Court's Opinion and Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 1676, 1683. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/1/2022) (mml)

Download PDF
In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X : IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK : RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. : : -------------------------------------------------------------X Doc. 1870 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS) ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”) filed a motion to decertify the class; WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, and May 13, 2022, the parties filed letter motions to seal exhibits filed with their memoranda of law. Dkt. Nos. 1676, 1677, 1683, 1684. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion to seal is GRANTED. The documents filed at Docket No. 1677 and 1684 shall remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached Appendix will have access. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Filing the documents with redactions in that redacted form is necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of personal information, including personal information pertaining to individuals subject to foreign data privacy regimes. Filing the deposition transcripts under seal is necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential business information that was not relied upon by any party or the Court in briefing or deciding the instant motion and thus is subject to a weaker presumption of public access, but is included in the exhibits only because it is adjacent to the relevant portions. Filing the excerpts under seal Dockets.Justia.com rather than in redacted form is necessary to avoid speculation and misleading inferences about what might be redacted, particularly because the public will have access to descriptions of any relevant material in the parties’ memoranda of law and the Court’s Opinion and Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 1676, 1683. Dated: September 1, 2022 New York, New York 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.