# In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation

> District Court, S.D. New York · May 3, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10331832

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** May 3, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10331832

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK : 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS)
RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION :
: ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on April 30, 20201, pursuant to the Court’s November 12, 2020, Order (Dkt. No.
1544), the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, the Credit Suisse Defendants filed a letter motion to seal
portions of the parties’ papers in support of or opposition to the cross-motions for summary judgment.
The letter motion states that “Plaintiffs have advised [the Credit Suisse Defendants] that they intend to
propose narrower redactions than the proposed redactions set forth in Appendix A,” and requests leave
to file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to seal by May 7, 2021. Dkt. No. 1572.
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a letter-motion to seal portions of the parties’
papers in support of or opposition to the cross-motions for summary judgment, proposing more narrow
redactions than those proposed in the Credit Suisse Defendants’ letter motion at Docket No. 1572.
Dkt. No. 1578. It is hereby
ORDERED that, by May 13, 2021, Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ more
narrow redactions. Any opposition shall include a revised version of the chart provided in Appendix A
of Plaintiffs’ letter motion, with a column stating Defendants’ position as to why more extensive
redactions or sealing is warranted in light of the “strong presumption of access” that attaches to judicial
documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006).

Dated: May 3, 2021
New York, New York
LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
Flerrmnm Gemrammna Firomniren Tromeor

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10331832. Public record. Not legal advice.