The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2023
Docket1:19-cv-01608
StatusUnknown

This text of The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation (The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when March 16, 2023 deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 392. Via ECF SO ORDERED. Honorable Jesse Furman United States District Judge Southern District of New York AO Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, New York 10007 Mafch 17, 2023 Re: City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp., et al., 19-cv-1608 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, and the Stipulation and Order Regarding Redaction and Sealing Process for Class Certification Briefing (Dkt. No. 358), Defendants, on behalf of all parties, hereby seek leave to file by ECF, Defendants’ Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, and supporting document (the “Opposition Papers”) (Dkt. Nos. 386-391) with certain confidential documents and information sealed or redacted.! An index listing all material that the parties seek to file in redacted form or under seal is attached as Exhibit 1. The parties have met and conferred regarding each’s proposed redactions and documents to be filed under seal, and no party opposes the requests of any other party. The parties’ respective 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 set forth below. While the parties acknowledge that the materials to be redacted or sealed are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, they believe that in balancing the competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court should grant the parties’ motion. Defendants’ information. Defendants have substantially narrowed the scope of their confidentiality designations with respect to Defendants’ discovery material previously designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential and filed, quoted from, or referenced in the Opposition Papers. The materials that Defendants wish to keep confidential and have filed in redacted form or under seal are documents and testimony that discuss specific and sensitive ' Defendants’ Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, along with the supporting Declaration of Brandon Gould (“Gould Declaration”) and exhibits, were filed on February 9, 2023, with restricted access. Dkt. Nos. 390-391. Included as exhibits to the Gould Declaration were the Expert Report of John Chalmers (“Chalmers Report”) (Dkt. No. 391-1) and the Expert Report of Glenn Hubbard (“Hubbard Report”) (Dkt. No. 391-2). Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, including the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, and the supporting Declaration of S. Conrad Scott (“Scott Declaration”) were also filed on February 9, 2023, with restricted access.

information related to Defendants’ rate-setting processes, handling of VRDO inventory and inventory limits, and handling of bonds unable to be remarketed, among other items. Filing these materials in redacted or sealed form is consistent with the standards for sealing in the Second Circuit. Courts in the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York have held that it is appropriate to seal commercially sensitive “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” New York v. Actavis, PLC, No. 14-CV-7473 (RWS), 2014 WL 5353774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014); see also City of Providence v. BATS Glob. Markets, Inc., No. 14-CV-2811 (JMF), 2022 WL 539438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (allowing for sealing of documents based on potential harm to competitive standing). In order to avoid creating a competitive disadvantage for a litigant, courts regularly allow the sealing of commercially sensitive information, including “trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and the like.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Keystone Foods Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-010125 (ALC), 2020 WL 5819864, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020). The documents and testimony Defendants wish to keep confidential fall within the scope of confidential and sensitive commercial information that should be sealed. These documents include: • Documents and testimony (and descriptions of the same) related to Defendants’ pricing methodologies that provide specific information about analysis conducted and inputs used to determine Defendants’ rates, and other specific processes related to rate-setting. See Dkt. No. 389 at nn.7, 12, p. 23; Dkt. No. 388-1 at 136:2-12, 136:18-137:5, 207:6-7; Dkt. No. 388-7 at 29:20-30:5, 30:13-20; Dkt. No. 388-8 at pp. 2-3; Dkt. No. 388-10 at 37:5-38:17; Dkt. No. 388-14 at 60:25-63:25, 78:16-80:14; Dkt. No. 388-15 at 49:15- 50:17; Dkt. No. 388-16 at 75:13-76:3; Dkt. No. 388-19 at 114:16-116:25; Dkt. No. 388- 20 at 138:19-139:25; Dkt. No. 388-22 at pp. 2-3; Dkt. No. 388-23 at p. 1; Dkt. No. 390 at pp. 5-6 & n. 8; Dkt. No. 391-1 at p. 12 n.34, p. 16 & n.47, p. 28 n.99, p.48 n.177; Dkt. No. 391-2 at p. 60 n.170, p. 81-82 nn. 236, 240, 244, pp. 90-103 & nn. 275-77, 280-85, 287-88, 290, 295-298, 300, 314, 318-21, 323, 325-26, 331-32, 334, 336-37, 339-40, p. 106 n.349. p. 107 n.360, p. 130, p. 159 n.455, p. 192 n.536, pp. 194-95 nn.544, 548, p. .224 n.597; Dkt. No. 391-3 at 49:15-50:17, 54:5-55:9; Dkt. No. 391-6 at pp. 2-5; Dkt. No. 391-7 at 44:24-53:7; Dkt. No. 391-8 at pp. 2-3; Dkt. No. 391-9 at 99:19-101:16; Dkt. No. 391-12 at 84:12-85:17, 85:22-25, 86:11-25, 141:25-142:10; Dkt. No. 391-13 at 72:15- 78:14, 80:12-83:17, 114:2-117:24, 146:2-148:24; Dkt. No. 391-15; Dkt. No. 391-17 at 87:2-90:6, 178:7-179:6; Dkt. No. 391-18 at pp. 2-7; Dkt. No. 391-19 at 72:8-12, 86:12- 88:17, 94:23-24, Dkt. No. 391-20 at 165:2-168:12; Dkt. No. 391-21 at 45:6-46:12, 192:6- 193:16; Dkt. No. 391-22 at 63:2-64:16, 65:8-12, 72:15-24, 200:9-10, 200:23-24, 201:13- 202:14, Dkt. No. 391-23 at 248:23-251:25, 274:2-280:25; Dkt. No. 391-24 at 97:2-99:23, 114:13-116:25, Dkt. No. 391-25 at 135:19-22; Dkt. No. 391-26 at p. 1; Dkt. No. 391-27 at pp. 2-3; Dkt. No. 391-29; Dkt. No. 391-30 at 147:12-150:25; Dkt. No. 391-31 at 53:2- 22, 54:2-55:3, 55:5-18, 55:24-56:12, 56:16-20, 57:8-10, 57:17-25; Dkt. No. 391-32 at 35:12-36:22; Dkt. No. 391-35 at 95:3-18; Dkt. No. 391-36 at 57:2-10, 58:23-59:5, 59:23- 60:3; Dkt. No. 391-40 at 97:17-98:17, 99:8-100:23; Dkt. No. 391-41 at 56:10-59:8; Dkt. No. 391-83 at 29:12-30:13; Dkt. No. 391-84 at p. 3; Dkt. No. 391-85 at pp. 1-2; Dkt. No. 391-87 at pp. 2-6. Disclosure of this information would allow competitors to essentially re-create portions of Defendants’ proprietary pricing methodologies and rate-setting processes. While some of these materials may be from before 2010, similar or identical processes are still in place today • Testimony related to Defendants’ handling of bonds they were unable to remarket. See Dkt. No. 391-78 at 183:4-10. Disclosure of this information would allow competitors to strategically market their handling of similar circumstances against Defendants’ practices. • Documents and testimony (and descriptions of same) related to Defendants’ tracking of VRDO inventory, inventory levels on specific CUSIPs, handling of inventory, and inventory limits. See Dkt. No. 388-10 at 109:19-110:7; Dkt. No. 388-15 at 96:5-25; Dkt. No. 391-1 at p. 50, pp. 133-35 & nn. 473, 477, 480, 484, p. 140, p. 142 & n.516, pp. 146- 47 & nn. 538-40, pp. 152, 158, 168, 171-72, Appendix D: Exhibits 39, 41, 42, 45, 53; Dkt. No. 391-2 at p. 256 nn. 652, 654-55, p. 257 n.658, pp. 260-61 & nn.662, 665, pp. 263-64 & nn. 672, pp. 267-68 & nn. 679-80, 682-83, pp. 270-71 & nn.688, pp. 691-92; Dkt. No. 391-42 at 28:9-29:4; Dkt. No.

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

Related

United States v. Amodeo
71 F.3d 1044 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
119 F. Supp. 3d 152 (S.D. New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-city-of-philadelphia-v-bank-of-america-corporation-nysd-2023.