The opinion
USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
:
IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK : 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS)
RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION :
: ORDER
:
------------------------------------------------------------ X
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of a
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 1518.
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, Defendant Credit Suisse filed a pre-motion letter in
anticipation of a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 1519.
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, Defendant Credit Suisse filed a responsive letter to
Plaintiffs’ pre-motion letter at Docket No. 1518 (Dkt. No. 1538), along with a letter requesting to
redact portions of the November 5, 2020, responsive letter at Docket No. 1538 and to file an
unredacted version of the letter under seal (Dkt. No. 1536).
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a responsive letter to Defendant’s pre-
motion letter at Docket No. 1519 (Dkt. No. 1534), along with a letter requesting to redact
portions of the November 5, 2020, responsive letter at Docket No. 1534 and to file an unredacted
version of the letter under seal (Dkt. No. 1533). It is hereby
ORDERED that, the parties’ motions to seal at Docket Nos. 1533 and 1536 are
GRANTED. The unredacted version of Defendant’s November 5, 2020, responsive letter filed at
Docket No. 1537 will remain sealed, the unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ November 5, 2020
responsive letter filed at Docket No. 1535 will remain sealed and only the parties and individuals
identified in the attached Appendix A 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 vy. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) C‘[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 information related to non-patties.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 1533, 1534,
1535, 1536.
Dated: November 6, 2020
New York, New York .
LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE