# In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation

> District Court, S.D. New York · September 1, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10344001

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** September 1, 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/10344001

## Opinion text

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK :
RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. : 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS)
:
-------------------------------------------------------------X ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”) filed a motion to decertify the class;
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, and May 13, 2022, the parties filed letter motions to seal
exhibits filed with their memoranda of law. Dkt. Nos. 1676, 1677, 1683, 1684. It is hereby
ORDERED that the motion to seal is GRANTED. The documents filed at Docket No.
1677 and 1684 shall remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached
Appendix will have access. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial
documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must
balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one
best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the
relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Filing the documents with redactions in
that redacted form is necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of personal information,
including personal information pertaining to individuals subject to foreign data privacy regimes.
Filing the deposition transcripts under seal is necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential
business information that was not relied upon by any party or the Court in briefing or deciding
the instant motion and thus is subject to a weaker presumption of public access, but is included in
the exhibits only because it is adjacent to the relevant portions. Filing the excerpts under seal
rather than in redacted form is necessary to avoid speculation and misleading inferences about
what might be redacted, particularly because the public will have access to descriptions of any
relevant material in the parties’ memoranda of law and the Court’s Opinion and Order.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 1676, 1683.
Dated: September 1, 2022
New York, New York
LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10344001. Public record. Not legal advice.