The opinion
New York, NY 10022-6069
+1.212.848.4000
MEMO ENDORSED
November 11, 2022
VIA ECF
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
redaction of Defendants’ Reply In Support of Their Objections to Judge Cave’s Report and
Recommendation Regarding Class Certification (Dkt. No. 617) (“Defendants’ Reply”). The
Parties’ justifications for 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’ Reply 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’ Reply be filed in redacted form. 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’ Justifications and Designations
Defendants’ Reply 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’ Reply be filed in redacted form, pursuant to 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
Defendants' application to file the materials at docket entry 617
with redactions is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
maintain docket entry 617 under seal, viewable only to the parties and
the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry
629.
Dated: November 14, 2022 SO ORDERED.
New York, New York
Kathir ball. Feutho-
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pooe 7 of 2