City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. et al

Filing 570

ORDER granting 544 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 568 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal (that is, convert to public view, with no restrictions) ECF Nos. 545, 545-1, 545-3, 545-5 and to tenninate ECF Nos. 544,568. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/15/21) (yv)

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 570 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 2

March 15, 2021
VIA ECF
The Honorable Jesse M. Furman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-2811-JMF;
Motion to Seal

Dear Judge Furman:
Pursuant to the Court’s March 11, 2021 Order (ECF No. 555), the NYSE Defendants1
respectfully request redaction of customer names on pages 3, 4 and 9 of ECF No. 545-4 and that
545-2 remain sealed. NYSE’s proposed redactions are identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
To determine whether documents can be sealed or redacted, the court must weigh the
presumption in favor of public access against: 1) the importance of the information to the merits
of the motion; and 2) the importance of competing considerations, including the privacy interests
of those who oppose disclosure. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20
(2d Cir. 2006). Here, NYSE’s narrow request to redact customer names readily meets the
standard to seal. On one side of the equation, the presumption in favor of public access is not as
strong for a discovery related motion such as the instant matter, as it is for dispositive motions.
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Telegram Grp. Inc., No. 19-CV-9439 (PKC), 2020 WL 3264264, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2020), citing Brown v Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). On
the other side, the factors all weigh in favor of granting the request. The names of NYSE’s
customers are not relevant to the underlying discovery dispute. See MacroMavens, LLC v.
Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., No. 09 CIV. 7819 (PKC), 2011 WL 1796138, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27,
2011) (finding irrelevant customer names can be redacted from motions in limine). Further, the
identity of customers and the products/services they use is competitively sensitive information,
and these non-parties “have a privacy interest in preventing the public disclosure of their
identities.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 2020 WL 3264264, at *1, 4.
With respect to 545-2, this email discusses a request for information from counsel to aid
in the provision of legal advice for purposes of responding to an investigation. Accordingly,
NYSE informed Plaintiff that this email should not have been produced in redacted format, but

1

The NYSE Defendants are the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Chicago, Inc.) (collectively “NYSE”).

US_Active\117319023

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 570 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 2