In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation

Filing 1974

ORDER: In general, portions of the documents at issue that provide context should not be redacted. References to any monetary penalties actually paid should be redacted. Defendants challenges to Plaintiffs' redactions regarding specific conduct not at issue in this case are denied. In plea allocution transcripts, fragments of colloquy that are unrelated to the substance for which the transcript is offered should be redacted. If any party wishes for the Court to give a limiting instruction, including those that the Court has previously agreed to give, the parties shall confer and jointly propose an instruction, showing any language on which they disagree during a break in advance of the Court's delivering the instruction. The requesting party shall request the instruction during trial when it is to be delivered. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/10/2022) (ama)

Case 1:13-cv-07789-LGS Document 1974 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
:
In re FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK :
RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
:
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------X

13 Civ. 7789 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2022, the parties filed a joint letter raising disputes over
redactions to be applied to eighteen exhibits, all related to criminal and civil proceedings against
alleged co-conspirator banks and individual traders. The disputes are resolved below.
In general, portions of the documents at issue that provide context should not be redacted.
References to any monetary penalties actually paid should be redacted. Defendants’ challenges
to Plaintiffs’ redactions regarding specific conduct not at issue in this case are denied. In plea
allocution transcripts, fragments of colloquy that are unrelated to the substance for which the
transcript is offered should be redacted.
Guilty Plea Agreements

1

•

PTX 1587, 2667, 2672, 2677, 1 2679: Defendants’ requests to redact portions of the guilty
plea agreements that provide context are DENIED with the following exceptions: (1)
references to the amounts of fines (¶ 9 in each agreement); (2) references to other
“investigations identified in Attachment A (filed under seal)” (¶ 15 in PTX 1587, 2672,
2679 and ¶ 18 in PTX 2677) and (3) references to non-prosecution “for the conduct
specifically identified in Paragraph 13” (¶ 16(b) in PTX 1587, 2672, 2679 and ¶ 19(b) in
PTX 2677). Defendants’ request to remove certain of Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions
concerning conduct not directly at issue in this action are DENIED. Those portions do
not lend context to the unredacted portions of the document.

•

PTX 2665, 2681: Defendants’ requests to redact portions of the guilty plea agreements
that provide context are DENIED.

The parties’ submission did not include a copy of PTX 2677 with proposed redactions. The
Court assumes for purposes of this Order that the proposed redactions are in line with the similar
documents addressed in this paragraph.

Case 1:13-cv-07789-LGS Document 1974 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 3

•

PTX 2666: Defendants’ request to preclude this exhibit in full is GRANTED.

Plea Allocution Transcripts
•

PTX 1602, 2 2673, 2678: Defendants’ requests regarding adding or removing redactions
of the following portions of the transcript are resolved as follows (all page numbers refer
to the ECF pagination at the top of the page): GRANTED as to pages 8, 12, 30:1-20,
30:23-25, 32, 34, 37:6-25; DENIED as to pages 30:23-22, 31:1-8, 31:9-17, 37:1-5.

•

PTX 2669: Defendants’ requests regarding adding or removing redactions of the
following portions of the transcript are resolved as follows (page numbers refer to the
transcript’s internal pagination at the top right of each page): GRANTED as to pages 3,
6:20-26, 13:1-13, 15, 17; DENIED as to pages 5, 6:1, 6:9-19, 13:14-16, 14, 16.

•

PTX 2671: The parties’ submissions did not contain a working copy of PTX 2671 with
proposed redactions. In line with the rulings above regarding PTX 1602, 2673, 2678 and
2669, the Court intends to grant requests to redact fragments of colloquy that are unrelated
to the substance for which the transcript is offered and generally to deny requests to redact
portions that provide context and requests to unredact portions that concern conduct not
directly at issue in this action.

Other Documents

2

•

PTX 1591, 2670: Defendants’ request to redact portions of the Informations that provide
context are DENIED. Defendants’ request to remove certain of Plaintiffs’ proposed
redactions concerning conduct not directly at issue in this action are DENIED.

•

PTX 1594: Defendants’ requests to redact portions of this consent order that provide
context are DENIED except with respect to proposed redactions of ¶¶ 10, 57, 58, 59 and
72-77.

•

PTX 2659, 2660: Defendants’ requests to redact portions of the indictment and judgment
are DENIED, and Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions are
OVERRULED, since Defendants’ objections to admissibility are untimely and previously
were withdrawn. The Court will, however, deliver a limiting instruction to the effect that
the Judgment resulted from a finding of guilty after trial and that the jury did not need to
find all of the allegations in order to convict.

The parties’ submission did not include a working copy of PTX 1602, but based on the parties’
representations that it is identical to PTX 2673 and 2678, the Court assumes for purposes of this
order that the same redactions are sought and objected to.
2

Case 1:13-cv-07789-LGS Document 1974 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 3

If any party wishes for the Court to give a limiting instruction, including those that the
Court has previously agreed to give, the parties shall confer and jointly propose an instruction,
showing any language on which they disagree during a break in advance of the Court’s delivering
the instruction. The requesting party shall request the instruction during trial when it is to be
delivered.
Dated: October 10, 2022
New York, New York

3