Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 3, 2023·No. 1:19-cv-07998·Unknown

Opinion

DavisPolk 3e22¢°"" siacee ee lara.buchwald@davispolk.com New York, NY 10017 davispolk.com USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: September 29, 2023 DATE FILED: 10/3/2023 _ Honorable Valerie E. Caproni United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998 (VEC) Dear Judge Caproni: Pursuant to Rule 5(B) of the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases and the September 12, 2023 Order approving the parties’ proposed sealing procedures (ECF No. 186), Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“Merrill Lynch” or “Defendant”) moves for leave to file under seal or in redacted form various materials submitted by Plaintiff in support of her motion for summary judgment and submitted by Defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Plaintiff's proposed expert." This letter motion follows a meet and confer process, where defense counsel advised Plaintiff that it wishes to redact or seal certain documents and information in the parties’ motion papers that Merrill Lynch and its affiliate, non-party Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), have designated as confidential or highly confidential under the governing protective order (referred to herein as “the Relevant Material”). The positions of the parties and non-party BANA are set forth below. Position of Merrill Lynch and Non-Party BANA Merrill Lynch and non-party BANA seek to seal or redact certain confidential and sensitive business information referenced in the parties’ motion papers. The information that Merrill Lynch and BANA seek to seal or redact here is the same as the information that was the subject of the parties’ prior motions regarding redaction and sealing in this case, all of which the Court granted in full (ECF Nos. 96, 120, 135, 167, 170). The first category of information to be sealed and redacted reflects the methodology for setting interest rates, including the specific factors considered when determining rates and references to proposed rate changes. It also includes key inputs into BANA’s proprietary and confidential forecasting methodology, which is used for financial modeling and forecasting for the broader enterprise. Non-party BANA views this information as highly sensitive and the same methodologies remain in use today. BANA does not share this information with the public, it does not share this information with competitors, and if competitors were to acquire this information, they could make pricing decisions that could cause competitive harm to BANA. Current and former BANA employees are subject to robust policies and agreements that do not permit them to disclose these types of proprietary and sensitive business information. The second category of information to be sealed and redacted reflects financial information relating to the total amount of cash or accounts in Merrill Lynch investment accounts, including account balances, the total amount of cash swept, the number of specific accounts maintained, and the number of statement- linked accounts. Merrill Lynch views this category of information as highly sensitive; while aggregate- Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendant served its motion papers on Plaintiffs counsel on September 15, 2023, by email, and vice versa. The parties are e-filing those papers herewith.

Davis Polk Honorable Valerie E. Caproni

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

Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp.
97 F. Supp. 3d 485 (S.D. New York, 2015)