Maher v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al

Filing 106

ORDER in case 1:14-cv-01459-VEC; with respect to (508) Letter Motion to Seal in case 1:14-md-02548-VEC. By no later than Friday, February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform the Court whether they object to the filing of unredacted versions of Defenda nts' memorandum of law and exhibits at docket entry 509 on the public docket. If Plaintiffs object, they must explain why such redactions are warranted given the presumption of access in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs are welcome to propose more narrow redactions; though Plaintiffs must demonstrate that any proposed redactions overcome the Lugosch presumption. The Court encourages the parties to consult the Court's endorsements at docket e ntries 480 and494. If Defendants would like to reply to Plaintiffs' letter, they must do so by no later than Friday, February19, 2021. So ordered (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/1/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (js)

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/1/2021

MEMO ENDORSED
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 1-212-558-3588
WWW.SULLCROM.COM

125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2498
______________________

LOS ANGELES • PALO ALTO • WASHINGTON, D.C.
BRUSSELS • FRANKFURT • LONDON • PARIS
BEIJING • HONG KONG • TOKYO
MELBOURNE • SYDNEY

January 29, 2021
Via ECF
Hon. Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

In re Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options
Trading Litigation, No. 14-md-2548 (VEC)

Dear Judge Caproni:
We write on behalf of The Bank of Nova Scotia, and on behalf of Barclays
Bank PLC, Société Générale, and The London Gold Market Fixing Limited
(“Defendants”), to respectfully request that the Court seal portions of Defendants’
January 29, 2021 Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Depose Rosa M.
Abrantes-Metz and Gustavo Bamberger (the “January 29 Memorandum”) and exhibits BE enclosed thereto.
On January 18, 2017, the Court entered the Stipulation and Protective
Order (Dkt. No. 208) (the “Protective Order”), which states that “[a]ll Confidential or
Highly Confidential Discovery Material filed with the Court, and all portions of
pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose such Confidential or
Highly Confidential Discovery Material, shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the
Court and kept under seal until further Order of the Court.” The documents described in
and attached to the January 29 Memorandum were designated “Confidential” by
Plaintiffs and filed under seal on November 18, 2020 (ECF No. 476).
Paragraph 16 of the Protective Order states that, for documents “subject to
a confidentiality designation” included in or attached to a court filing, the “party
submitting that filing shall serve counsel for the producing Person or other Person
designating the Discovery Material with a copy of the filing at the time the filing under
seal is made.” As set out in the Protective Order, Defendants are serving a copy of the
January 29 Memorandum and the enclosed exhibits on Plaintiffs, and to the extent

The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni

-2-

Plaintiffs continue to designate these materials as “Confidential,” will submit a statement
to the Court within ten business days containing any statements from Plaintiffs on why
sealing the redacted material is appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the redacted
portions of Defendants’ January 29 Memorandum and exhibits B-E be filed under seal.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen Ehrenberg
Stephen Ehrenberg

cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
By no later than Friday, February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform the Court whether they object to the filing
of unredacted versions of Defendants' memorandum of law and exhibits at docket entry 509 on the public
docket. If Plaintiffs object, they must explain why such redactions are warranted given the presumption of
access in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs are welcome to propose
more narrow redactions; though Plaintiffs must demonstrate that any proposed redactions overcome the Lugosch
presumption. The Court encourages the parties to consult the Court's endorsements at docket entries 480 and
494. If Defendants would like to reply to Plaintiffs' letter, they must do so by no later than Friday, February
19, 2021.
SO ORDERED.

Date: February 1, 2021
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE