Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation et al

Filing 166

ORDER: While Defendants' motion is not sufficient to justify sealing, the court will give Defendants the opportunity to present additional information as to why the proposed redactions satisfy the Lugosch test. See Bd. of Trs. of AGMA Health Fund v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 24-cv-5168 (RA), 2024 WL 4604618, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2024) (granting request to seal based on supplemental letter). Defendants are thus instructed to file a supplemental letter no later than December 3, 2024 advising the Courtin more detail and consistent with case lawwhy its confidentiality interests outweigh the right of public access. See, e.g., In re Digit. Music Antitrust Litigt., 321 F.R.D. 64, 82 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[I]nternal pri cing strategies and competitive pricing data [are] sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction."); Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Raritan Americas, Inc., No. 10-cv-6100 (PKC), 2012 WL 3114855, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) (permitting sealed filing of documents "because they include confidential business informationmarket forecasts, sales, inventory management, profit margins, etc.the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm"). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 11/26/2024) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDRE PAUWELS,
Plaintiff,

No. 19-cv-2313 (RA)

v.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION and THE BANK OF NEW
YORK MELLON,

ORDER

Defendants.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ motion to seal portions of their motion for summary
judgment. See Dkt. 160. As the parties are aware, a litigant may seal materials pursuant to the
three-part test articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, which permits sealing only
when the presumption of public access to judicial documents is outweighed by countervailing
interests such as confidentiality or privacy. See 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006).
Here, Defendants argue that their proposed redactions are justified because “the names
of. . . . sponsors of certain wind investments. . . . are subject to ongoing confidentiality
obligations.” Dkt. 160 at 1. That argument, however, is “lacking in particularity” and does “not
provide adequate support for the Court to conclude” that the materials should remain sealed under
Lugosch. Brandon v. NPG Recs., Inc., No. 19-cv-1923 (GHW), 2020 WL 2086008, at *11
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020), aff’d, 840 F. App’x 605 (2d Cir. 2020). Indeed, “[c]ourts in this District
have consistently held that [p]arties’ interest in a confidentiality agreement enacted between them
is not sufficient on its own to overcome the interest of public disclosure and transparency.” Gen.
Re Life Corp. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 23-cv-5219 (ALC), 2024 WL 1329381, at *5

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024); see also Bernsten v. O’Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 168 (S.D.N.Y.
2018) (collecting cases).
While Defendants’ motion is not sufficient to justify sealing, the court will give Defendants
the opportunity to present additional information as to why the proposed redactions satisfy the
Lugosch test. See Bd. of Trs. of AGMA Health Fund v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 24-cv-5168 (RA),
2024 WL 4604618, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2024) (granting request to seal based on supplemental
letter). Defendants are thus instructed to file a supplemental letter no later than December 3, 2024
advising the Court—in more detail and consistent with case law—why its confidentiality interests
outweigh the right of public access. See, e.g., In re Digit. Music Antitrust Litigt., 321 F.R.D. 64,
82 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“[I]nternal pricing strategies and competitive pricing data [are]
sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction.”); Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Raritan Americas, Inc.,
No. 10-cv-6100 (PKC), 2012 WL 3114855, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) (permitting sealed
filing of documents “because they include confidential business information—market forecasts,
sales, inventory management, profit margins, etc.—the disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm”).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 26, 2024
New York, New York

________________________________
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

2