Standard Chartered Bank Int'l (americas) Ltd. v. Calvo

• Decision Date: 09 December 2010
• Docket Number: June 16, 2010.
• Citation: 757 F.Supp.2d 258
• Parties: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK INTERNATIONAL (AMERICAS) LTD., et al., Plaintiffs,v.MIGUEL CALVO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

757 F.Supp.2d 258

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK INTERNATIONAL (AMERICAS) LTD., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.MIGUEL CALVO, et al., Defendants.

June 16, 2010.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Joseph Neuhaus, Esq., Patrick B. Berarducci, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

ORDER

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge Sitting in Part I:

Plaintiffs Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd. (“Standard”) and Stanchart Securities International, Inc. (“Stanchart”) seek permission to file a Complaint, the attached exhibits, and all party filings in this action under seal. This ex parte application, the third in this district by a corporate litigant in as many days, comes to this Court sitting in Part I. This application presents the new paradigm in the commercial litigation arena where parties attempt to supplant federal court practice with private arbitral agreements. Efforts, like this one, to file significant corporate litigation under seal interfere with sound judicial administration and the public's right to monitor activities in federal courts.

In the underlying action, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to, inter alia, enjoin an arbitration proceeding now ongoing before the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) titled Miguel Calvo, et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank, ICDR No. 50 148 T 00508 09. Plaintiffs assert that the AAA panel committed certain errors of law in a recent jurisdictional decision. Further, Plaintiffs argue that this action is related to another action in this District, Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Group, No. 09 Civ. 118(VM), in which a PSLRA stay of discovery is currently in place, and that information learned in this action would undermine the stay in Anwar. While the arbitration proceedings were filed in September 2009, it was not until June 9, 2010, after the AAA's jurisdictional decision, that the parties entered into a Confidentiality Agreement to keep all “Arbitration Material” private. The timing of that Confidentiality Agreement (three business days before this application) does not appear to be a coincidence. Rather, it has all the characteristics of an artificial construct in which major financial institutions seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court using their own set of rules.

The federal courts “have recognized a strong presumption of public access to court records.” Video Software Dealers Assoc. v. Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Nixon v. Warner Comm'cns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978)). However, not every document filed with a court is subject to “the right of public access”; rather, only judicial documents—those relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process—are presumptively public. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1995)). Here, Plaintiffs' blanket request to seal all documents encompasses both matters which are of little value to a court in performing its duties—such as discovery documents—as well as important papers—like the Complaint—which underpin a civil action and give a federal court jurisdiction over a matter.

In considering whether presumptively public judicial documents, such as these, should be sealed, a court considers (1) the danger of...