Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc
Filing
144
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 120 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 126 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 131 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 136 Le tter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 137 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 142 Letter Motion to Seal. The parties and non-parties Citadel Securities LLC and Loomis, Sayles & Company L.P. move to se al various documents filed in connection with Defendant's motion for summary judgment. "The common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," but this right is not absolute and cou rts "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). "Our precedents indicate that documents submitt ed to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion are -- as a matter of law -- judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment." Id. at 121. In weighing that p resumption against competing considerations, such as the confidentiality of business or personal information, a court must considerthe "qualified First Amendment right of access" and can seal documents based on this right only "if sp ecific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve thatinterest." Id. at 120. Where the movants seek to redact specific information about confidential busin ess and personal information, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against competitive or personal harm, which outweigh the presumption of access accorded to these filings. However, to the extent the movants request to seal entir e documents, the parties justifications are insufficient. Therefore, the applications to seal at Dkt. Nos. 120, 126, 131, 136, 137 and 142 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice to renewal. The motions are granted to the extent th e movants have proposed specific redactions and denied to the extent they request sealing the entirety of documents. Nonpublic business and personal information may be redacted, but background descriptions or other nonconfidential surrounding in formation shall not be redacted. All documents currently filed under seal shall remain under seal at this time. By August 29, 2024, the movants shall file the documents containing the proposed specific redactions on the public docket reflecting th ose redactions and either (1) file renewed motions to redact with specific proposed redactions highlighted for the remaining documents in accordance with the above ruling or (2) file on the public docket unredacted versions. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 120, 126, 131, 136, 137 and 142. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/14/2024) (jca)
Michael A. Paskin
mpaskin@cravath.com
T+1-212-474-1760
New York
November 1, 2023
Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 1:22-cv-6706-LGS
Dear Judge Schofield:
Pursuant to Rule I.D.3 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Procedures for Civil
Cases and the Stipulated Protective Order for Confidential Information (Dkt. No. 40), Defendant
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“CGMI”) respectfully requests leave to file under seal certain
documents in connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment. In particular, for the reasons
set forth herein, CGMI seeks to file under seal unredacted versions of its (1) Memorandum of
Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Local Rule 56.1 Statement in Support
of its Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) certain exhibits submitted in support of its Motion
for Summary Judgment.
In the above-referenced documents, CGMI cites and discusses material that has
been designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only” by Plaintiff Loomis
Sayles Trust Company, LLC and third parties Loomis, Sayles & Company L.P. and Citadel
Securities LLC pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this matter on November 21, 2022
(Dkt. No. 40). Additionally, CGMI cites to two “trade confirms”, submitted as Exhibits 50 & 51,
that identify Loomis clients as well as those clients’ financial account information. Consistent
with Your Honor’s Individual Rule I.D.3 and the Protective Order in this case, unredacted copies
of these documents have been filed under seal.
CGMI takes no position as to whether the information at issue qualifies for
sealing by this Court, but has filed it under seal based on the designations by the above entities.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael A. Paskin_______
Michael A. Paskin
The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
VIA ECF
Copies to:
FOLEY HOAG LLP
Matthew C. Baltay (pro hac vice)
Dean Richlin (pro hac vice)
Kenneth S. Leonetti
Leah S. Rizkallah
Amanda S. Coleman
Natalie F. Panariello (pro hac vice)
mbaltay@foleyhoag.com
drichlin@foleyhoag.com
ksl@foleyhoag.com
lrizkallah@foleyhoag.com
acoleman@foleyhoag.com
npanariello@foleyhoag.com
The parties and non-parties Citadel Securities LLC and Loomis, Sayles & Company L.P. move to seal various documents filed
in connection with Defendant's motion for summary judgment. "The common law right of public access to judicial
documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history," but 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). “Our precedents indicate that documents submitted to a court for its
consideration in a summary judgment motion are -- as a matter of law -- judicial documents to which a strong presumption
of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment.” Id. at 121. In weighing that presumption
against competing considerations, such as the confidentiality of business or personal information, a court must consider
the “qualified First Amendment right of access” and can seal documents based on this right only “if specific, on the record
findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that
interest.” Id. at 120. Where the movants seek to redact specific information about confidential business and personal
information, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against competitive or personal harm, which
outweigh the presumption of access accorded to these filings. However, to the extent the movants request to seal entire
documents, the parties’ justifications are insufficient. Therefore, the applications to seal at Dkt. Nos. 120, 126, 131, 136,
137 and 142 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice to renewal. The motions are granted to the
extent the movants have proposed specific redactions and denied to the extent they request sealing the entirety of
documents. Nonpublic business and personal information may be redacted, but background descriptions or other
nonconfidential surrounding information shall not be redacted. All documents currently filed under seal shall remain
under seal at this time. By August 29, 2024, the movants shall file the documents containing the proposed specific
redactions on the public docket reflecting those redactions and either (1) file renewed motions to redact with specific
proposed redactions highlighted for the remaining documents in accordance with the above ruling or (2) file on the public
docket unredacted versions. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 120, 126, 131,
136, 137 and 142.
2
Dated: August 14, 2024
New York, New York
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?