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
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york
COHEN MILSTEIN
October 22, 2021
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 letter-reply in support of Plaintiffs’ letter-
motion for reconsideration (ECF 478) of the Court’s order granting in part Defendants’ letter-
motion requesting leave to file a sur-reply (ECF 476) with redactions to references to confidential
material, pursuant to paragraph I.G of this Court’s Individual Rules of Practice.
Plaintiffs request to file their letter-reply 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 and letter-
opposition with redactions (ECF 472, 479), and the Court granted their requests (ECF 474, 482).
Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiffs’ letter-motion (ECF No. 485) requesting to redact
Michael B. Eisenkraft confidential materials from their letter-reply (ECF No. 486)
Michael B. Eisenkraft is GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL limit access to ECF No. 486 to Court users and the case
PLLC participants. Plaintiffs shall promptly file on ECF a
redacted version of ECF No. 486.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No.
485.
SO ORDERED 10/25/2021
ay /
/ □ ral Ze
(anal L. CAYE
~United States Magistrate Judge