Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 637

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the joint letter will 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. Pyra mid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commcns., 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 above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/3/2020) (jca)

Case 1:15-cv-09300-LGS Document 637 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
JOHN NYPL, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
-against:
:
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

15 Civ. 9300 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal the portions of a joint
letter (Dkt. No. 629). On September 2, 2020, Defendants filed a letter in support (Dkt. No. 635).
It is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the
joint letter will 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 above-referenced document in
redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business
information.
Dated: September 3, 2020
New York, New York