Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank

S.D. New York

Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank

DecidedJanuary 16, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-09108

StatusUnknown

This text of Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank (Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank) 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

Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL WYSE, as Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor, 24 Civ. 9108 Plaintiff, -V- ORDER METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK, Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This order resolves a dispute over the continued sealing of the complaint. On December 23, 2024, plaintiff Michael Wyse, Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor (“Wyse”), filed a letter motion requesting that the Court set a briefing schedule to address whether the complaint should remain partially under seal. Dkt. 22. Wyse claimed that it so filed the complaint because defendant Metropolitan Commercial Bank (“MCB”) had alleged that certain information contained in the draft complaint was protected pursuant to a confidentiality agreement entered into between the parties in the pending Voyager bankruptcy proceeding, see In Re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., No. 22 B.R. 10943 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2024), Dkt. 1644, but that, upon review, Wyse did not agree. Dkt. 22. The Court ordered briefing on the issue. Dkts. 23, 25. On January 7, 2025, MCB filed a response, arguing that the complaint redacted two categories of confidential information—internal emails and draft contracts—that should be maintained under seal. Dkt. 26. MCB separately requested that Wyse, as assignee of the claims of over 30,000 assignors, provide the names of the Voyager account holders, fa On January 10, 2025, Wyse replied, arguing that disclosure of the information would not cause MCB any

competitive harm, in part because the information is several years old, and MCB did not provide any specific examples of business risk. Dkt. 27. Upon review of the sealed information, the Court sustains the redactions as to paragraphs 80-85 of the complaint, but otherwise does not find a basis for its continued sealing. The Court directs Wyse forthwith to re-file the partially sealed complaint in accordance with this order. Separately, as proposed by Wyse, see Dkt. 27 at 3, the Court is prepared to so-order a confidentiality agreement consistent with the requirements of the Federal Trade Commission order. See Federal Trade Commission v. Voyager Digital, LLC, No. 23 Civ. 8960 (8.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023), Dkt. 35.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL A. te □□ YER United States District Judge Dated: January 16, 2025 New York, New York

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL WYSE, as Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor, 24 Civ. 9108 Plaintiff, -V- ORDER METROPOLITAN COMMERCIAL BANK, Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This order resolves a dispute over the continued sealing of the complaint. On December 23, 2024, plaintiff Michael Wyse, Plan Administrator for the Voyager Wind-Down Debtor (“Wyse”), filed a letter motion requesting that the Court set a briefing schedule to address whether the complaint should remain partially under seal. Dkt. 22. Wyse claimed that it so filed the complaint because defendant Metropolitan Commercial Bank (“MCB”) had alleged that certain information contained in the draft complaint was protected pursuant to a confidentiality agreement entered into between the parties in the pending Voyager bankruptcy proceeding, see In Re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., No. 22 B.R. 10943 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2024), Dkt. 1644, but that, upon review, Wyse did not agree. Dkt. 22. The Court ordered briefing on the issue. Dkts. 23, 25. On January 7, 2025, MCB filed a response, arguing that the complaint redacted two categories of confidential information—internal emails and draft contracts—that should be maintained under seal. Dkt. 26. MCB separately requested that Wyse, as assignee of the claims of over 30,000 assignors, provide the names of the Voyager account holders, fa On January 10, 2025, Wyse replied, arguing that disclosure of the information would not cause MCB any

competitive harm, in part because the information is several years old, and MCB did not provide any specific examples of business risk. Dkt. 27. Upon review of the sealed information, the Court sustains the redactions as to paragraphs 80-85 of the complaint, but otherwise does not find a basis for its continued sealing. The Court directs Wyse forthwith to re-file the partially sealed complaint in accordance with this order. Separately, as proposed by Wyse, see Dkt. 27 at 3, the Court is prepared to so-order a confidentiality agreement consistent with the requirements of the Federal Trade Commission order. See Federal Trade Commission v. Voyager Digital, LLC, No. 23 Civ. 8960 (8.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023), Dkt. 35.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL A. te □□ YER United States District Judge Dated: January 16, 2025 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyse-v-metropolitan-commercial-bank-nysd-2025.