Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation

S.D. New York

Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 15, 2023·No. 1:17-cv-03139·Unknown

Opinion

P= V3 BERGER| MONTAGUE

MICHAEL C. DELL’ANGELO / EXECUTIVE SHAREHOLDER d 215.875.3080 m 610.608.8766 | mdellangelo@bm.net June 14, 2023 VIA ECF Honorable Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 RE: Contant, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-3139 Dear Judge Schofield: Class Counsel respectfully submit this letter motion to request permission to seal portions of the Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Disbursement of the Interest Income Earned on the Settlement Funds. Class Counsel’s proposed redactions are limited to claim calculations. In accordance with your Honor’s Rules and Practices, Counsel will file an unredacted version of the brief with the proposed highlights under seal. Thereafter, Counsel will file a redacted version of the brief with exhibits on the record. In addition, attached to this letter is an appendix that identifies the parties and attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed documents. R tfully submitted ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) “spectey Seem

/s/ Michael Dell’Angelo Michael Dell’ Angelo DENIED without prejudice to renewal. "The common law right of public access to judicial documents is fi our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute and courts “must balance competing considerations against” of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation A court may only seal documents for which there is a presumptive right of access "if specific, on the record are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve t /d. at 120. “Higher values" may include the attorney client privilege, id. at 125, law enforcement interests « of innocent third parties. See United State v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995). Class Counsel has not how filing the redacted information under seal protects higher values sufficient to overcome the presumpt access. may file a renewed request to maintain these documents under seal by June 20, 2023, with an explanat sis for that request that is sufficient under Second Circuit case law. of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 594, and to maintain all currently sealed under seal pending a possible renewed motion to seal by Class Counsel. 15. 20223 Lo A baer

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

P= V3 BERGER| MONTAGUE

MICHAEL C. DELL’ANGELO / EXECUTIVE SHAREHOLDER d 215.875.3080 m 610.608.8766 | mdellangelo@bm.net June 14, 2023 VIA ECF Honorable Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 RE: Contant, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-3139 Dear Judge Schofield: Class Counsel respectfully submit this letter motion to request permission to seal portions of the Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Disbursement of the Interest Income Earned on the Settlement Funds. Class Counsel’s proposed redactions are limited to claim calculations. In accordance with your Honor’s Rules and Practices, Counsel will file an unredacted version of the brief with the proposed highlights under seal. Thereafter, Counsel will file a redacted version of the brief with exhibits on the record. In addition, attached to this letter is an appendix that identifies the parties and attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed documents. R tfully submitted ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) “spectey Seem

/s/ Michael Dell’Angelo Michael Dell’ Angelo DENIED without prejudice to renewal. "The common law right of public access to judicial documents is fi our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute and courts “must balance competing considerations against” of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation A court may only seal documents for which there is a presumptive right of access "if specific, on the record are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve t /d. at 120. “Higher values" may include the attorney client privilege, id. at 125, law enforcement interests « of innocent third parties. See United State v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995). Class Counsel has not how filing the redacted information under seal protects higher values sufficient to overcome the presumpt access. may file a renewed request to maintain these documents under seal by June 20, 2023, with an explanat sis for that request that is sufficient under Second Circuit case law. of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 594, and to maintain all currently sealed under seal pending a possible renewed motion to seal by Class Counsel. 15. 20223 Lo A baer

Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation (Contant v. Bank Of America Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related