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

> District Court, S.D. New York · November 10, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10346045

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** November 10, 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/10346045

## Opinion text

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york | ul
COHEN MILSTEIN

November 10, 2022
VIA ECE MEMO ENDORSED
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Re: Jowa Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. et al. vy. 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 Supplemented
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 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of their Limited Objection to Part □□□□
of Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 615), Declaration of Daniel L.
Brockett In Support of Plaintiffs’ Limited Objection to Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 616), and Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Reply (Dkt. No. 616-1) (collectively
“Plaintiffs’ Reply”). The Parties’ justifications for sealing or redacting those materials under
Lugosch vy. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006), and its progeny are
as follows.
Plaintiffs’ Justifications and Designations
Plaintiffs’ Reply quotes from, discusses, and makes reference to the substance of
documents designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” under the Parties’ January 2,
2019 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 150). Such materials include trade secrets, other confidential
research, development, or commercial information, and other private or competitively sensitive
information, including personal data. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the marked portions of
Plaintiffs’ Reply dated October 20, 2022 be filed in redacted form. In addition, Plaintiffs request
that Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Reply (Dkt No. 616-1) be filed 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 [‘‘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’ Reply likewise references materials previously entered in redacted form and/or under
seal. See e.g., Dkt. No. 432-39. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the marked portions of
Plaintiffs’ Reply be filed in redacted form and/or under seal, pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.
of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) and its progeny.
Defendants’ Justifications and Designations
Plaintiffs’ Reply quotes from, discusses, and refers to discovery material produced by
Defendants 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, Defendants request that the marked portions
of Plaintiffs’ Reply be filed in redacted form and/or under seal, pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid
Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) and its progeny.

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

Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain
docket entries 615 and 616, as well as Exhibit A to docket entry 616,
under seal, viewable only to the parties and the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry
624.

Dated: November 10, 2022 SO ORDERED.
New York, New York
Kithirnes Valle bull
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10346045. Public record. Not legal advice.