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
Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close
January 14, 2022 No. 511.
Via ECF SO ORDERED 1/18/22
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ny □□ /)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse \ AAA >
500 Pearl Street, Room 1670 (ACU
New York, NY 10007 Ana L GAYE
~United States Magistrate J
Re: Iowa 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 reply to Defendants’ sur-reply (ECF 495)
and accompanying materials under seal temporarily, pursuant to paragraph I.G of this Court’s
Individual Practices in Civil cases and paragraph 9(c)(i1) of Judge Failla’s Individual Rules of
Practice, to allow the parties to propose appropriate redactions or other designations.
Plaintiffs request to file their sur-sur-reply under seal 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 sur-reply under seal (ECF
494), and the Court granted their request (ECF 497).
Plaintiffs request to submit redacted copies, under-seal designations, and public copies of
(the sur-sur-teply materials on February 1,2022. This is consistent with the timeframe for the
parties’ previous filings.
Further, Plaintiffs understand that, pursuant to paragraph III.C. of this Court’s Individual
Rules of Practice, courtesy copies are not required unless requested by the Court. For the Court’s
consideration in assessing whether it wants courtesy copies, Plaintiffs expect that that the total
page count of the class certification filing will exceed 24,400 pages. Should the Court desire
courtesy copies, Plaintiffs propose to provide full copies of memoranda, expert reports, and expert
depositions, and to prepare excerpts of the remaining exhibits.
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