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

> District Court, S.D. New York · October 14, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10345268

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 14, 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/10345268

## Opinion text

New York, NY 10022-6069
+1.212.848.4000

MEMO ENDORSED

VIA ECF
October 14, 2022
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
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 Failla :
Section 9 of the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 150), as amended by the Supplemental
Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 228), provides that for any filing that quotes or refers to
discovery material that has been designated Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Highly
Confidential Data, the party “shall request to file such documents or portions thereof containing
or making reference to such material or information in redacted form or under seal.” Consistent
with the process this Court approved for such requests (Dkt. No. 408), the Parties now move for
sealing or redaction of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Limited Objection to Part IV.D of
Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 595), the Declaration of Michael
A. Paskin in Support of Defendants’ Response (Dkt. No. 596), and Exhibit 1 to the Declaration
(Dkt. No. 596-1) (collectively “Defendants’ Response”). The Parties’ justifications for sealing or
redacting those materials under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d
Cir. 2006), and its progeny are as follows.
Defendants’ Justifications and Designations
Defendants’ Response quotes from, discusses, and makes reference to the substance of
documents and data designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” under the Parties’
January 2, 2019 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 150), and “Highly Confidential Data” under the
Parties’ October 30, 2019 Supplemental Protective Order (Dkt. No. 228). Such materials include
trade secrets, other confidential research, development, or commercial information, and other
private or competitively sensitive information, including personal data. Accordingly, Defendants
request that the marked portions of Defendants’ Response be filed in redacted form, and that
Exhibit 1 be filed entirely under seal. This is in accordance with Section 9 of the Protective Order,
which provides that for “papers containing or making reference to the substance of
ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.
October 14, 2022
[“Confidential”, “Highly Confidential”, or “Highly Confidential Data”] material or information,
[a Party] shall request to file such documents or portions thereof containing or making reference
to such material or information in redacted form or under seal.”
Plaintiffs’ Justifications and Designations
Defendants’ Response quotes from, discusses, and refers to discovery material produced
by Plaintiffs subject to confidentiality designations, which include trade secrets, other confidential
research, development, or commercial information, or other private or competitively sensitive
information, including personal data. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the marked portions of
Defendants’ Objections be filed in redacted form and/or under seal, pursuant Lugosch v. Pyramid
Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) and its progeny.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Schwed
Richard Schwed
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain
docket entries 595 and 596, as well as Exhibit 1 to docket entry 596,
under seal, viewable only to the parties and the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket
entry #601.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2022
New York, New York aw @
Kithorn Palle beth
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10345268. Public record. Not legal advice.