# Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. > District Court, S.D. New York · March 21, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10339663 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York - **Decided:** March 21, 2022 - **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/10339663 ## Opinion text Application GRANTED for substantially the reasons stated in this letter. June 22, 2021 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to maintain the entries a VIA ECF documents at Dkt. Nos. 718, 720, 723, 725, 726, 727, 733, 735, 738 740, 743, 748, 751 and 753 under seal with access limited to the The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield individuals listed in Appendix A to this letter and to close the motic United States District Judge at Dkt. No. 715. Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square Dated: March 21, 2022 ( New York, New York 10007 New York, New York crates Duran JUDGE Re: = Nypl, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-9300 Dear Judge Schofield: Pursuant to Rule I.D.3 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Procedures for Civil Cases, the parties respectfully seek leave to file under seal limited portions of the papers in support of and in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the parties’ Daubert motions (the “Parties’ Submissions”) as set forth below. Certain portions of the Parties’ Submissions quote directly from or otherwise refer to documents that have been designated as “Highly Confidential” under the Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality (hereinafter the “Protective Order”) because they contain “material regarding trading and investment strategies, pricing and cost information, customer lists, business strategy, trade secrets and other commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which to another Party or non-party would create a substantial risk of causing the Disclosing Party to suffer significant competitive or commercial disadvantage ... .” (ECF No. 249 at 2-3.) In particular, these documents disclose confidential, proprietary information concerning how each bank sets retail foreign exchange rates for the purchase of physical foreign currency at its retail branches in the United States. Because the process used to set these rates reflects confidential pricing information and sensitive business strategies, the parties respectfully request that it not be disclosed publicly. (See ECF No. 597, July 20, 2020 Order (granting plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of a joint letter containing similar information for this reason).) The proposed redactions in the Parties’ Submissions are narrowly tailored to ensure that the bulk of the Parties’ Submissions will be publicly available on the docket. The parties also respectfully request that the Court protect from public disclosure certain deposition testimony that is not material to class certification but has been designated Highly Confidential under the Protective Order. By allowing the parties to file these transcripts under seal, the Court would be protecting from disclosure testimony that is not material to class certification but contains information that was designated Highly Confidential, while allowing public access to that testimony that is material to class certification through the parties’ legal briefs. As the Court knows, the Second Circuit has recognized that the right of public access to judicial documents is not absolute and “the court must balance competing considerations against it.” See Lugosch vy. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). For instance, documents may be sealed where “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly red to serve that interest.” see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc. (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a circumstances of the particular case.”). 720, 2013 WL 211096, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2013) (“Courts agreement.”). Pursuant to Rule I.D.3 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Procedures of Parties’ Submissions . Further pursuant to Rule I.D.3 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP By: s/ Adam S. Hakki* By: s/ Matthew A. Schwartz* Adam S. Hakki Matthew A. Schwartz Jeffrey J. Resetarits Maeghan O. Mikorski Attorneys for Defendants Bank of Attorneys for Defendants America Corporation and Bank of Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital America, N.A. Ine. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP LOCKE LORD LLP By: s/ Andrew A. Ruffino* By: s/ J. Matthew Goodin* Andrew A. Ruffino Roger B. Cowie Andrew D. Lazerow Gregory T. Casamento J. Matthew Goodin Julia C. Webb Attorneys for Defendants Citicorp, Attorneys for Defendants HSBC Bank Citigroup Inc. and Citibank N.A. USA, N.A. and HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: s/ Boris Bershteyn By: s/ Paul S. Mishkin* Boris Bershteyn Paul S. Mishkin Peter S. Julian Adam G. Mehes Tansy Woan Alexander Bystryn Attorneys for Defendants JPMorgan Attorneys for Defendant The Royal Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank of Scotland plc, now known as Bank, N.A NatWest Markets Ple GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: s/Eric J. Stock* Eric J. Stock Melanie L. Katsur Attorneys for Defendant UBS AG *Signatures used with permission pursuant to S.D.N.Y. ECF Rule 8.5 APPENDIX A Alioto Law Firm Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters Joseph M. Alioto Lingel H. Winters Thomas P. Pier Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nedeau Law Firm Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale Christopher A Nedeau Lawrence Papale Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Plaintiffs SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Adam S. Hakki Matthew A. Schwartz Jeffrey J. Resetarits Maeghan O. Mikorski George B. Adams Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America Attorneys for Defendants Barclays PLC and Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. Barclays Capital Inc. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP LOCKE LORD LLP Andrew A. Ruffino Roger B. Cowie Andrew D. Lazerow Gregory T. Casamento J. Matthew Goodin Julia C. Webb Attorneys for Defendants Citicorp, Citigroup | Attorneys for Defendants HSBC Bank USA, Inc. and Citibank N.A. N.A. and HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Paul S. Mishkin Boris Bershteyn Adam G. Mehes Peter S. Julian Alexander Bystryn Tansy Woan Attorneys for Defendants JPMorgan Chase & | Attorneys for Defendant The Royal Bank of Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A Scotland plc, now known as NatWest Markets Ple GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Eric J. Stock Melanie L. Katsur Attorneys for Defendant UBS AG --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10339663. Public record. Not legal advice.