Maher v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al
| Kevin Maher |
| Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Duetsche Bank, AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, Societe Generale and John Does 1-50 |
| 1:2014cv01459 |
| March 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Washington |
| Valerie E. Caproni |
| Antitrust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
144
ORDER AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND in case 1:14-cv-01459-VEC; granting (678) Motion for Disbursement of Funds in case 1:14-md-02548-VEC. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Order incorporates by ref erence the definitions and terms of the Original Settlements (ECF Nos. 174-1, 487-1) and the Third Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 607-1) (collectively, the "Settlements"), and all capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlements. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, and, for purposes of enforcing and administering the Settlements, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties to the A ction, including members of the Settlement Classes. 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Distribution of the Settlement Fund is GRANTED. Accordingly, a. The administrative determinations of Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel and the Court approved Claims Administrator, Kroll Settlement Administration LLC ("Kroll"), to accept eligible claims, as set forth the Declaration of Justin R. Hughes in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Distribution of the Settlement Fund (the "Hugh es Declaration"), are adopted; b. Kroll is directed to conduct the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in Exhibit B to the Hughes Declaration; c. Checks that are not cashed within 90 days after issue date will b ecome void; d. Settlement Class Members are encouraged to cash their checks promptly and to avoid or reduce future expenses relating to unpaid checks. All checks shall note that checks become void, and the recovery forfeited if not cashed w ithin 60 days of issuance; e. Settlement Class Members who do not cash their checks within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlements absent an order of the Court; and f. A reserve of ten percent (1 0%) of the amount of the Net Settlement Fund, after deducting the amount to be distributed to Authorized Claimants receiving the Alternative Minimum Payment, may be set aside to cover future estimated expenses, including taxes and any secondar y distribution, related to the Settlements. 4. The Court hereby orders the payment of fees and expenses in the amount of $216,965.19 to Kroll for its administration of the claims process and the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. 5. This Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications concerning the administration of the Settlements, and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties must file a status update on the distribution of settlement funds by May 17, 2024. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/18/2023) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
142
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs must submit a status update on the distribution of settlement funds by no later than February 8, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/2/2023) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg)
|
|
Filing
138
FINAL JUDGMENT: For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Final Judgment and dismissal order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement Agreement. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. 3. The no tice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, have been satisfied. As further set forth by this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/8/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER: WHEREAS a hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Third Settlement Agreement (the "Fairness Hearing") is scheduled for Friday, August 5, 2022, at 10:00 A.M.; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that additional c ounsel, client representatives, class members, and interested members of the public may attend in person (the hearing will be in Courtroom 443, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY) or may listen to the proceeding remotely, by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and the security code 2548. All of those accessing the hearing are reminded that recording or rebroadcasting of the proceeding is prohibited by law. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/28/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (rro)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER: WHEREAS a hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Third Settlement Agreement (the"Fairness Hearing") is scheduled for Friday, August 5, 2022, at 10:00 A.M. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defend ants may only have four counsel sitting at their respective counsel tables in the well of the courtroom. With respect to the Defendants, one representative from Barclays, Bank of Nova Scotia, Socit Gnrale, and the LGMF may sit at the Defense counsel table. Counsel for the objectors will sit in the jury box.Additional counsel, client representatives, class members, and interested members of the public may sit in the courtroom gallery. SO ORDERED., ( Fairness Hearing set for 8/5/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/26/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
130
FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO HSBC BANK PLC: For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agr eement, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement Agreement. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. 3. The notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, have been satisfied. 4. Based on the record before the Court, including the Preliminary Approval Order, the submissions i n support of the settlement between Plaintiffs, for themselves individually and on behalf of each Settlement Class Member in the Action, and HSBC Bank plc (the "Settling Defendant" and together with Plaintiffs, the "Settling Parties"), and any objections and responses thereto, pursuant Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Court hereby certifies solely for settlement purposes the following Settlement Class: As further set forth by this Order . The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Defendants HSBC Holdings PLC; HSBC Bank PLC; HSBC USA, Inc.; and HSBC Holdings PLC, a United Kingdom corporation. IT IS SO ORDERED. HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank PL C, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holding plc, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, a United Kingdom corporation, HSBC Holdings p.l.c., HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Holdings plc,, HSBC Holdings plc,, HSBC Holdings plc,, HSBC Holdings plc,, HSBC Holdings plc, a United Kingdom corporation, HSBC Holdings plc., HSBC USA, Inc., HSBC USA, Inc., HSBC USA, Inc., HSBC USA, Inc., Deutsche Bank AG and HSBC Bank PLC terminated. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/4/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg)
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER AWARDING LITIGATION EXPENSES: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in each Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which were previously filed with the Court (" Stipulations" or "Settlements") (ECF Nos. 174-1, 487-1), and all capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulations. As further set forth by this Order. The Court hereb y awards $8,027,282.81 in payment of litigation expenses and interest on such expenses at the same rate as the earnings in the Settlement Funds, accruing from the inception of each such Fund. Co-Lead Counsel is authorized to allocate this awa rd with other firms that assisted them in a manner in which, in Co-Lead Counsel's judgment, reflects the contributions of such counsel to the prosecution and settlement of the Action. As further set forth by this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/13/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Fairness Hearing is rescheduled to Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 2:30 P.M. The Court will also discuss Plaintiffs' motions with respect to the Third Settlement Agreement and the revised Plan of Allocation as to all three settlements (Dkts. 605, 608) at the Hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and all Defendants must attend the hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing will be held in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, located at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. All parties must attend the Hearing in person. Interested members of the public may attend the Hearing in person or remotely, by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and the s ecurity code 2548. All of those accessing the hearing are reminded that recording or rebroadcasting of the proceeding is prohibited by law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than Friday, December 10, 2021, counsel for the COMEX Objectors mus t inform the Court whether they wish to be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Any request must include a short description, not to exceed one page, of the content of the proposed presentation. Were the request to be granted, the COMEX Objectors would be limited to ten minutes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that per the SDNY COVID-19 COURTHOUSE ENTRY PROGRAM, any person who appears at any SDNY courthouse must complete a questionnaire and have his or her temperature taken. Please see the enclosed instru ctions. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only those individuals who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire will be permitted entry. Additionally, any person who appears at any SDNY courthouse must comply with Standing Order M10-468 (21-MC-164), which further pertains to courthouse entry. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by no later than Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Plaintiffs must post on the settlement website that the Fairn ess Hearing has been rescheduled. See Order, Dkt. 516 28. By no later than Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform the Court that the settlement website has been updated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines, including with re spect to the motion for class certification and any Daubert motions, are hereby STAYED. SO ORDERED. ( Fairness Hearing set for 1/4/2022 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/2/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg)
|
|
Filing
121
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, the Fairness Hearing is adjourned to Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:00 A.M. The Fairness Hearing will be held in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall United S tates Courthouse, located at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by no later than Wednesday, September 29, 2021, Plaintiffs must post the change in date and time of the Fairness Hearing on the settlement website. See Order, Dkt. 516 28. By no later than Friday, October 1, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform the Court that the settlement website has been updated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that per the SDNY COVID-19 COURTHOUSE ENTRY PROGRAM, any person who appears at any SDNY courthouse must complete a questionnaire and have his or her temperature taken. Please see the enclosed instructions. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only those individuals who meet t he entry requirements established by the questionnaire will be permitted entry. Please contact chambers promptly if you or your client do not meet the requirements. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person who appears at any SDNY courthouse must co mply with Standing Order M10-468 (21-MC-164), which further pertains to courthouse entry. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that interested members of the public may listen to the hearing remotely by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and t he security code 2548. All of those accessing the hearing are reminded that recording or rebroadcasting of the proceeding is prohibited by law. SO ORDERED. (Fairness Hearing set for 10/21/2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/21/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (tg) Modified on 9/21/2021 (tg).
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, the Fairness Hearing is adjourned to Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:00 A.M. The Fairness Hearing will be held in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, located at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by no later than Wednesday, September 1, 2021, Plaintiffs must post the change in date and time of the Fairness Hearing on the settlement website. See Orde r, Dkt. 516 Paragraph 28. By no later than Friday, September 3, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform the Court that the settlement website has been updated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that per the SDNY COVID-19 COURTHOUSE ENTRY PROGRAM, any person who appears at any SDNY courthouse must complete a questionnaire and have his or her temperature taken. Please see the enclosed instructions. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only those individuals who meet the en try requirements established by the questionnaire will be permitted entry. Please contact chambers promptly if you or your client do not meet the requirements. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person who appears at any SDNY courthouse must comply with Standing Order M10-468 (21-MC-164), which further pertains to courthouse entry. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that interested members of the public may listen to the hearing remotely by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and the security code 2548. All of those accessing the hearing are reminded that recording or rebroadcasting of the proceeding is prohibited by law. SO ORDERED., ( Fairness Hearing set for 10/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/30/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all written follow up to the Barclays Bank 30(b)(6) deposition and any final review and follow up with respect to the Bank of Nova Scotia's privilege logs must be complete by no later than Tuesday, August 31, 202 1. The Court understands that all other fact discovery is complete. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than Friday, July 30, 2021, the parties must propose a joint schedule with respect to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and rela ted expert discovery that conforms with the directions provided by the Court at today's conference. SO ORDERED., ( Deposition due by 8/31/2021.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/23/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must access the conference using the link provided by the parties in their joint letter. See Joint Letter, Dkt. 570 at 5. Any interested members of the public may listen to the proceeding remotely by dia ling 1-669-219-2599, using the password 9248120834#. Recording or rebroadcasting the proceeding is strictly prohibited by law. SO ORDERED., ( Pretrial Conference set for 7/23/2021 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/19/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, the conference is adjourned to Friday, July 23, 2021 at 2:00 P.M. The Court reminds the parties that the conference will be held by virtual means, to be arranged by the parties. See Endorsement, Dkt. 543. The parties' pre-conference submission deadline is adjourned to Friday, July 16, 2021. For the requirements of the submission, the parties should consult the third amended fact discovery schedule at docket entry 445. The pre-conference submission must include the virtual conference access information for the Court and for any interested members of the public. The Court reminds the parties that recording or rebroadcasting any proceeding is strictly prohibited by law. SO ORDERED., ( Pretrial Conference set for 7/23/2021 at 02:00 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/18/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER: granting (508) Letter Motion to Seal; granting (518) Letter Motion to Seal; granting (523) Letter Motion to Seal in case 1:14-md-02548-VEC. Plaintiffs' and Defendants' sealing applications, at docket entries 508, 518, and 523, are he reby GRANTED. The parties make two separate sealing requests: First, Plaintiffs and Defendants seek to redact the information quoted or displayed in Plaintiffs' opposition brief that was produced by Defendants and designated as confidential purs uant to the parties' Protective Order. See Pls. Letter Motion, Dkt. 518 at 1, 5; Defs. Letter Motion, Dkt. 523 at 2. Second, Plaintiffs seek to redact the work product of its consultants that was "included, quoted, and described in" e ither Plaintiffs' or Defendants' briefs and exhibits in connection with Defendants' motion. See Pls. Letter Motion, Dkt. 518 at 1. A presumption of public access applies to judicial documents. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit has found that "[i]n defining 'judicial records and documents,' we have emphasized that 'the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that pap er a judicial document subject to the right of public access.' Instead, 'the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.&# 039;" Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). With respect to the first sealing request, the information produced by Defendants and designated confidential, the Court fi nds that such information does not constitute judicial documents under the Lugosch standard and so the presumption of public access does not apply. While such information went to Defendants' alleged role in the Fixing process, it did not concer n whether Plaintiffs' experts are immune from deposition. Because the presumption of public access does not apply, the sealing request as to such information is granted. With respect to the second sealing request, the information produced by Pl aintiffs' consultants, Plaintiffs contend that such information also does not constitute judicial documents. See Pls. Letter Motion, Dkt. 518 at 2-3. But the Court finds that the redacted materials are judicial documents. Although Defendants ' motion centers on whether Abrantes- Metz and Bamberger are entitled to the protections of Rule 26(b)(4)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires a Court to limit discovery when it is "unreasonably cumulative o r duplicative." See Fed. R. Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). In order to assess whether the depositions at issue would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the Court must consider their potential subject matter, an inquiry which necessarily bears upo n the redacted materials. Accordingly, because the materials are "implicated in judicial proceedings," they are squarely judicial documents. See Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir. 2013). But a relatively weak presum ption of public access applies to these materials because they were filed in connection with a discovery dispute. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 49 ("[T]he presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes... is g enerally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment."). The Court finds that there is sufficient information in the pub lic record to understand the basis for the Court's decision without needing to review the redacted materials. Additionally, the Court agrees that the materials contain sensitive and possibly proprietary information that could be used by the con sultants' competitors and possibly by future defendants in other price manipulation lawsuits. See Pls. Letter Motion, Dkt. 518 at 4-5; see also Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Encyclo pedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Accordingly, given the low presumption of access in discovery disputes, Plaintiffs' application to redact material produced by Plaintiffs' consultants is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions at docket entries 508, 518, and 523. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/14/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER in case 1:14-cv-01459-VEC; with respect to (508) Letter Motion to Seal in case 1:14-md-02548-VEC. By no later than Friday, February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform the Court whether they object to the filing of unredacted versions of Defenda nts' memorandum of law and exhibits at docket entry 509 on the public docket. If Plaintiffs object, they must explain why such redactions are warranted given the presumption of access in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs are welcome to propose more narrow redactions; though Plaintiffs must demonstrate that any proposed redactions overcome the Lugosch presumption. The Court encourages the parties to consult the Court's endorsements at docket e ntries 480 and494. If Defendants would like to reply to Plaintiffs' letter, they must do so by no later than Friday, February19, 2021. So ordered (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/1/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (js)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs and settling Defendants must file a joint letter addressing the issues raised at the conference and redlined versions of the revised settlement documents by no later than Friday, February 5, 2021. Revise d submissions should populate a Fairness Hearing date and time of Thursday, October 7, 2021, at 11:00 A.M. and all interim dates as appropriate. SO ORDERED. (Fairness Hearing set for 10/7/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/14/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (jca)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER in case 1:14-cv-01459-VEC; granting (492) Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; granting (493) Letter Motion to Seal in case 1:14-md-02548-VEC. Plaintiffs' and Defendants' sealing applications, at docket entries 492 and 493, a re hereby GRANTED. The filings in question were not made in support or in opposition to any motion currently before the Court. At the October 28, 2020 conference, the Court granted Defendants leave to file the charts discussed at the conference, whic h Defendants alleged would be "helpful to the Court" to support their contention that portions of Plaintiffs' data analysis in the Third Amended Complaint was misleading. Conference Tr., Dkt. 468 at 39. Defendants' subsequent lett er and exhibits did not seek any relief from the Court. Dkt. 460. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' filing included 79 exhibits, that Plaintiffs claimed were shared in an effort for the "Court to appreciate the extent of the unique v isibility Defendants have been given into the inner-workings of counsel and our (non-testifying) consultants" and to provide the "larger context of the thoroughness of counsel's pre-filing investigation." Dkt. 476 at 2. Like Defen dants, Plaintiff did not seek any specific relief from the Court. Given this unique posture, the Court finds that the documents in question are not judicial documents and the presumption of public access in Lugosch does not apply. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit has found that "[i]n defining 'judicial records and documents,' we have emphasized that 'the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to ren der that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access.' Instead, 'the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.'" Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). Without a request for relief before the Court, the documents "are not yet implicated in judicial proceeding s" and "will not necessarily meet the higher threshold imposed by the First Amendment with respect to judicial documents." Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases). The Court recognizes that th e parties may seek to use the documents in question in future motions. See, e.g., Dkts. 361, 365 (contemplating a possible Rule 11 motion by Defendants); Dkts. 476, 492 (referencing ongoing discovery disputes that may result in requests for relief fr om the Court). But "[e]ven if we assume that [such documents] might be relevant to the judicial function at a later point in this case, that would not be sufficient to render the [documents in question] a judicial document now." United Stat es v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 139 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). Because the letters and exhibits in question currently are not judicial documents, the presumption of public access does not apply. And though the Court has found tha t Plaintiffs have waived the work product doctrine over such documents, see Dkts. 377, 480, the Court recognizes that required disclosure to Defendants is fundamentally different than disclosure to the public. Given the sensitive and possibly proprie tary information contained in the letters and exhibits, the Court hereby grants the sealing requests. The Court notes that if either party utilizes any of these documents in future motions, the parties must either file them on the public docket or ma ke a new, much narrower, sealing request, given the presumption of access in Lugosch. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions at docket entries 492 and 493. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/12/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (nb)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for reasons stated at the conference, the February 2014 draft report titled Are Gold Prices Being Fixed? by Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz and Albert D. Metz and memoranda produced by Plaintiffs' experts or consultants and sent to counsel are covered by this Court's Order on Defendants' Motion to Compel Production. See Dkt. 377. Plaintiffs must promptly produce such documents to Defendants. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/29/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (cf)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a telephone conference is scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, 2020, at 3:30 P.M. All parties and any interested members of the public must attend by dialing 1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171, and the secu rity code 2548. All attendees are advised to mute their phones when not speaking and to self-identify each time they speak. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 10/28/2020 at 03:30 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/26/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER: WHEREAS on October 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for the issuance of Letters Rogatory as to six individuals currently residing in the United Kingdom, Dkt. 448; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that should any Defendants wish to respond, they must do so by no later than Friday, October 30, 2020. SO ORDERED., ( Responses due by 10/30/2020) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/16/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
86
OPINION AND ORDER re: (362 in 1:14-md-02548-VEC) LETTER MOTION for Discovery Protective Order addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Marc J. Gottridge dated January 24, 2019 filed by HSBC Bank PLC, The Bank of Nova Scotia, Soc iete Generale, Barclays Bank PLC. For the reasons discussed above, as to electronically tabulated data, Defendant SG is GRANTED leave to pseudonymize customer identity information from such datasets; Defendant Barclays is GRANTED leave to pseudon ymize customer identity information from such datasets, to the extent that such information originated in Singapore and was transferred outside of Singapore pursuant to Part II of the Third Schedule of the Singapore Banking Act. As to the remaining documents that are not available in tabulated form, Defendants Barclays (only as to Singaporean documents produced by the sole Singapore-based custodian or transferred outside of Singapore pursuant to Part II of the Third Schedule of the Singapor e Banking Act) and SG are GRANTED leave to redact customer identity information from their production, subject to a reasonable number of requests from Plaintiffs for disclosure of the pseudonym(s) associated with the customer(s) referenced in tho se documents. If after reviewing a pseudonymized or redacted document, Plaintiffs can articulate a specific need for the disclosure of the customer's identity, Plaintiffs may request that Defendants SG or Barclays produce the unredacted versi on of the document. Such requests must be reasonable in number, and the parties are directed to bring any disputes to the Court's attention if they cannot be resolved after a good-faith meet-and-confer. As to all other documents, Defendants request to redact or pseudonymize, including for purposes of complying with the common law of England and Wales, is DENIED. At the oral argument on this motion, the parties informed the Court that, despite their best efforts, the discovery schedule previously entered in this case, Dkt. 327, needs to be adjusted. The parties are directed to meet and confer and to submit an agreed-upon modification of the schedule by May 17, 2019. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motion at docket entry 362. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/6/2019) **Filed In All Member Cases, pursuant to instructions from Chambers: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al.(anc)
|
|
Filing
58
OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, UBS's Motion to DISMISS is GRANTED in its entirety. The Fixing Banks' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Fixing Banks' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for unlawful restraint of trade from the beginning of the Class Period through December 31, 2005, and from January 1, 2013 through the end of the Class Period. The Fixing Banks' Motion to Dismiss is further GRANTED with r espect to Plaintiffs' manipulative device claims from the beginning of the Class Period to August 15, 2011, and with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment. The Fixing Banks' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plai ntiffs' antitrust claims for unlawful restraint of trade from January 1, 2006 through December 13, 2012. The Fixing Banks' Motion to Dismiss is further DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' price manipulation claims, Plaintiffs' mani pulative device claims after August 15, 2011, and Plaintiffs' aiding and abetting and principal-agent liability claims. LGMF's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to personal jurisdiction and is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to th e same extent as the Fixing Banks Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions at docket numbers 71, 73. Plaintiffs' deadline to show good cause why leave to replead should be granted is October 17, 20 16. The parties must appear for a pretrial conference on October 28, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007. The parties, together with the parties in In re Silver Fixing, Ltd., Ant itrust Litig., No. 14-md-2573 (VEC), must meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for discovery and class certification. The parties are required to submit a joint proposal (if possible) or separate proposals (if a joint proposal is not possibl e) by October 21, 2016. Within that submission the parties must address whether discovery in this case should be consolidated with discovery in In re Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-2573 (VEC), and should include any other items they would like to discuss at the October 28, 2016 conference. So ordered. re: (73 in 1:14-md-02548-VEC) MOTION to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Duetsche Bank, AG, HSBC Bank PLC, The Bank of Nova Sco tia, Societe Generale, Barclays Bank PLC, (71 in 1:14-md-02548-VEC) MOTION to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6) & 12(f) filed by UBS Securities LLC, UBS AG. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/3/2016) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02548-VEC et al. Entry made in cases as per Chambers. (rjm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
