# Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation

> District Court, S.D. New York · August 9, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10334111

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 9, 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/10334111

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the Court must “balance competing considerations against [the presumption of access],” including but not limited to “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure”

## Opinion text

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york ll
COHEN MILSTEIN

“geen MEMO ENDORSED
VIA ECF
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: Jowa Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp. et al., No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF)
Dear Judge Failla:
Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to file their letter motion to compel depositions and
the related exhibit under seal, pursuant to paragraph 9(c)(i1) of this Court’s Individual Rules of
Practice.
On August 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a letter motion to compel the depositions of certain
individuals whose declarations were included with Defendants’ class certification opposition
papers. (Dkt. 444) Today, counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs requesting
that Plaintiffs file their letter motion under seal and redact the names of the declarants in order to
protect the privacy interest of those individuals, a request to which Plaintiffs consent. See
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that the
Court must “balance competing considerations against [the presumption of access],” including
but not limited to “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure”) (quoting United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Pursuant to Section 21.7 of the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions,
Plaintiffs contacted the ECF HelpDesk to request that the filing be temporarily sealed and made
inaccessible to PACER users. The parties now request that the Court formally seal Plaintiffs’
letter motion to compel.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael B. Eisenkraft /s/ Daniel L. Brockett
Michael B. Eisenkraft Daniel L. Brockett
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
PLLC SULLIVAN, LLP

Application GRANTED. The portions of Plaintiffs’ submission regarding
their motion to compel specified for redaction may be filed under seal,
viewable only to the parties and the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket
entry 445.
Date: August 9, 2021 SO ORDERED.
New York, New York
Kathir Palle (flo
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10334111. Public record. Not legal advice.