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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
aintiffs' letter-motion (ECF No. 477) requesting to redact confidential materials from their request for
is GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to limit access to ECF No. 478 to
users and the case participants. Plaintiffs shall promptly file on ECF a redacted version of ECF No.
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 477. 4 ja
Agra
ORDERED 10/22/2021 tinea se Magletrava □□□
VIA ECF
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1670
New York, NY 10007
Re: Iowa Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp. et al., No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF)
Dear Judge Cave:
Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to file their request for reconsideration of the Court’s
order granting in part Defendants’ letter-motion requesting leave to file a sur-reply (ECF 473, 476)
with redactions to references to confidential material, pursuant to paragraph 9(c)(ii) of this Court’s
Individual Rules of Practice.
Plaintiffs request to file their request for reconsideration in redacted form as it contains
references to expert materials and documents that have already been, or will be, filed under seal or
in redacted form pursuant to sealing orders issued by Judge Failla and have been designated as
Highly Confidential or Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in this case (ECF 150). 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)). Defendants’ likewise sought leave to file their letter-
motion with redactions (ECF 472), and the Court granted their request (ECF 474).
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