The opinion
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
"FACSIMILE: 212-558-3500 DOC #:
WWW.SULLCROM.COM Ne eee.
DATE FILED:__ 11/5/2020
November 4, 2020
Via ECF Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.
Honorable Stewart D. Aaron, Dated: November 5, 2020
United States Magistrate Judge, Aor cf fiw,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007.
Re: = Allianz Global Inv’rs GmbH, et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp., et al.,
Case No. 18-cv-10364
Dear Judge Aaron:
Pursuant to Section IJI.B.3 of the Court’s Individual Practices, I write on
behalf of the Barclays Defendants in the above-referenced action (“Barclays”) to seek leave
to file under seal an unredacted version of Exhibit A to Barclays’ letter motion for an
extension of the November 5, 2020 deadline set by the Court in its October 23, 2020 order
(ECF No. 625) for determining whether audio files exist and are readily accessible from
the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007 for certain custodians. Exhibit A
is a declaration of Nicole E. Zapasnikas offered in support of Barclays’ letter motion for
an extension (“Declaration’’).
Although the public’s right to access judicial documents “‘is strong, it 1s ‘not
absolute.’” In re Pishevar, 2020 WL 1862586, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (Aaron, J.)
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)) (granting motion to
seal and denying motion to unseal). Rather, the weight of the presumption may weaken
based on “the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article [II judicial power.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)). Because “a
court’s authority to oversee discovery” is “ancillary to the court’s core role in adjudicating
a case,” “the presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery
disputes” is “somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial,
or in connection with dispositive motions.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir.
2019).
Several well “[e]stablished factors” and interests—including “privacy
interests” and “business secrecy”—can “outweigh the presumption of public access” and
Honorable Stewart D. Aaron -2-
United States Magistrate Judge
justify sealing. Hanks v. Voya Ret. Ins. & Annuity Co., 2020 WL 5813448, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 30, 2020); see In re Pishevar, 2020 WL 1862586, at *6 (describing the interest-
balancing analysis). Given the relative weakness of the public’s right of access to materials
related to discovery disputes, countervailing privacy interests must accordingly be given
greater weight. See In re Pishevar, 2020 WL 1862586, at *7.
At issue here are the privacy interests of six Barclays employees from
around the world who are not parties to this action. The Declaration identifies each of
those employees by name and discloses whether they were “indicted, terminated and/or
suspended” as required by the Court’s October 23, 2020 order (ECF No. 625). Because
“[n]on-parties’ privacy interests may comprise ‘a strong factor weighing against disclosure
of their identities,’” the countervailing privacy interest in this case outweighs the
presumption of public access. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., 2012
WL 13029602, at *9 (D. Conn. May 10, 2012) (quoting In re Savitt/Adler Litig., 1997 WL
797511, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1997)).
Thus, this Court should grant Barclays’ motion to seal the Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew A. Schwartz
Matthew A. Schwartz
Attorney for Defendants Barclays PLC,
Barclays Bank PLC, and
Barclays Capital Inc.
cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)