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

> District Court, S.D. New York · November 30, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10336950

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** November 30, 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/10336950

## 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

Plaintiffs’ letter-motion to seal (ECF No. 500) is GRANTED.
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to limit access to
ECF No. 501 to the case participants and Court users.
Plaintiffs shall promptly file on ECF a redacted version of
their letter filed at ECF No. 501.
November 29, 2021 SO ORDERED 11/30/2021
VIA ECF . ip
LX } LAA 7
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave eu
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse ~United States Magistrate Judge
500 Pearl Street, Room 1670
New York, NY 10007
Re: Jowa Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp. et al., No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF-SLC)
Dear Judge Cave:
Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to file their letter-reply in support of Plaintiffs’
letter-motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ sur-reply (ECF 495, 498)
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)).
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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10336950. Public record. Not legal advice.