The opinion
Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp.
2026 NY Slip Op 30712(U)
March 1, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 652051/2020
Judge: Andrea Masley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6520512020.NEW_YORK.015.LBLX000_TO.html[03/10/2026 3:45:53 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 652051/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1207 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
BANGLADESH BANK, INDEX NO. 652051/2020
Plaintiff,
MOTION DATE --
-v-
MOTION SEQ. NO. 051
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, MAIA
SANTOS DEGUITO, ANGELA RUTH TORRES,
LORENZO V. TAN, RAUL VICTOR B. TAN, PHILREM DECISION + ORDER ON
SERVICE CORP., SALUD BAUTISTA, MICHAEL MOTION
BAUTISTA, KAM SIN WONG, and JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 051) 1067, 1068, 1069,
1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1083, 1084, 1095
were read on this motion to/for SEAL .
In motion sequence 051 defendant Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
(RCBC) moves pursuant to the Uniform Rules of the New York State Trial Courts (22
NYCRR) § 216.1 to seal/redact the following documents (see NYSCEF Doc. No.
[NYSCEF] 1067, Order to Show Cause):
1. PDF containing: (i) Letter to the bank regulatory agency of the Philippines (the
BSP), (ii) the Poblador Bautista & Reyes Report (PBR Report), (iii) the SyCip
Gorres Valayo & Co. Report (SGV Report), (iv) RCBC Board of Directors Draft
Meeting Minutes, and (v) RCBC Special Committee Draft Meeting Minutes
(NYSCEF 966);
2. PDF containing: (i) Letter to BSP, (ii) PBR Report, (iii) SGV Report, (iv) RCBC
Special Committee Draft Meeting Minutes, and (v) RCBC Board of Directors
Draft Meeting Minutes (NYSCEF 967);
652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 1 of 6
Motion No. 051
1 of 6
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 652051/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1207 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026
3. PBR Report (NYSCEF 968);
4. SGV Report (NYSCEF 969);
5. November 3, 2025 Email From Kang (NYSCEF 9711);
6. November 5, 2025 Email Thread (NYSCEF 9732);
7. December 23, 2025 Letter From Abbott (NYSCEF 9753);
8. Bangladesh Bank’s Memorandum of Law (MOL) (NYSCEF 9854);
9. January 2, 2025 Email From Kang (NYSCEF 9995);
10. January 2, 2026 Transcript (NYSCEF 10006);
11. January 3, 2026 Email From Kang (NYSCEF 10017);
12. January 14, 2026 Email From Kang (NYSCEF 10048);
13. August 27, 2025 Letter From Loffler (NYSCEF 10109);
14. January 4, 2025 Email From Kang (NYSCEF 101110); and
15. Bangladesh Bank’s Reply MOL (NYSCEF 101611).
Specifically, RCBC argues that good cause exists to seal/redact because the
documents contain (i) confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney work
product, and (ii) sensitive proprietary and business information protected from
1
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1070.
2
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1071.
3
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1072.
4
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1073.
5
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1074.
6
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1075.
7
RCBC did not include NYSCEF 1001 in its proposed OSC but includes the document
in its other filings related to the sealing request. A publicly redacted version is filed at
NYSCEF 1076.
8
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1077.
9
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1078.
10
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1079.
11
A publicly redacted version is filed at NYSCEF 1080.
652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 2 of 6
Motion No. 051
2 of 6
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 652051/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1207 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026
disclosure under Philippine bank secrecy laws. (See NYSCEF 1081, Proposed Sealing
Chart.) The motion is unopposed. There is no indication that the press or public have
an interest in this matter.
Legal Standard
“Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to
access to judicial proceedings and court records.” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d
345, 348 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) The public’s right to access is, however,
not absolute, and under certain circumstances, “public inspection of court records has
been limited by numerous statutes.” (Id. at 349.) For example, § 216.1(a) of the
Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, empowers courts to seal documents only upon a written
finding of good cause. It provides:
“Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter
an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in
whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall
specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been
shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the
parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe
appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.” (Uniform Rules for Trial
Cts [22 NYCRR] § 216.1 [a].)
The “party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate
compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” to the documents.
(Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 349 [citations omitted].) Good cause must “rest on a sound
basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” (Danco Lab Ltd. v Chemical Works of
Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks and
citation omitted].)
Discussion
NYSCEF 966, 967, 968, and 969
652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 3 of 6
Motion No. 051
3 of 6
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 652051/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1207 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026
RCBC seeks to seal NYSCEF 966, 967, 968, and 969 on the ground that these
documents contain (i) confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney work
product and (ii) highly sensitive propriety and business information protected from
disclosure by bank secrecy laws that “pose a concrete risk to RCBC’s security and
operations” if made publicly available. (NYSCEF 1081, Proposed Sealing Chart;
NYSCEF 1068, MOL at 4.) Courts have sealed records that contain confidential
attorney-client privileged communications. (White Oak Commercial Fin., LLC v EIA,
Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 34228[U], *10 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; Carlin v William Gottlieb
Mgt. Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 32353[U], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2020].) Similarly,
courts have found that good cause exists to seal documents that contain sensitive
information that could pose security concerns if disclosed. (Matter of Crawford v New
York City Dept. of Info. Tech. & Telecom., 43 Misc 3d 735 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014], lv
dismissed 136 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2016].) For these reasons, the court finds that
RCBC has sufficiently demonstrated that good cause exists to seal NYSCEF 966, 967,
968, and 969.
NYSCEF 971, 973, 975, 985, 999, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1010, 1011, and 1016
RCBC seeks to redact NYSCEF 971, 973, 975, 985, 999, 1000, 1001, 1004,
1010, 1011, and 1016 on the ground that these documents contain confidential
information protected from disclosure under Philippine bank secrecy laws, including
references to regulatory investigations by the BSP and bank customer and account
information. (NYSCEF 1081, Proposed Sealing Chart.) The court has previously found
that RCBC has sufficiently demonstrated good cause to seal/redact documents where
the filings contain or describe correspondence related to BPS’s investigations of RCBC
652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 4 of 6
Motion No. 051
4 of 6
[* 4]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 652051/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1207 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026
and public disclosure would be a violation of the bank secrecy laws of the Philippines.
(See NYSCEF 1042 Decision and Order [mot. seq. no. 046] at 3-4.) Moreover, §
202.5(e) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, requires the parties to “omit or redact
confidential personal information in papers submitted to the court for filing.” (Uniform
Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.5 [e].) The statute defines “confidential personal
information” to include “a financial account number, including . . . a bank account
number.” (Id. § 202.5 [e] [iv].) On these grounds, the court finds that RCBC has shown
good cause to redact NYSCEF 971, 973, 975, 985, 999, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1010, 1011,
and 1016.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that motion sequence 051 is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk, upon service of this order, is directed to seal
NYSCEF 966, 967, 968, 969, 971, 973, 975, 985, 999, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1010, 1011,
and 1016; and it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed documents
with access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees, the parties
and counsel of record in this action, and any representative of a party or of counsel of
record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from counsel; and
it is further
ORDERED that RCBC shall serve a copy of this order on the County Clerk in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse County Clerk
Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the
court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further
652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 5 of 6
Motion No. 051
5 of 6
[* 5]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 652051/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1207 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2026
ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings
that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed
sealing order to the court (via sfc-part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing
another seal motion; and it is further
ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for the
purposes of trial or other court proceedings on the record, e.g. arguments on motions.
3/1/2026
DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
652051/2020 BANGLADESH BANK vs. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING Page 6 of 6
Motion No. 051
6 of 6
[* 6]