From Magistrate Judge Catherine Parker (SDNY) on Thursday Ap-Fonden v. Goldman Sachs Group:
This securities fraud lawsuit was filed in 2018 and stemmed from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) scandal. The plaintiff is an investor in the defendant Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”). The parties have begun sealing submissions related to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification….
First, the documents filed in support of the motion for class certification are judicial documents and are presumed to be available to the public. [to court records] Will apply….
Goldman Sachs noted that in support of its application to keep certain documents sealed and to allow the submission of other redacted evidence, it sought to redact the names and other personally identifiable information of current and former Goldman Sachs employees and both entities as well as those not affiliated with Goldman Sachs. personal. Goldman Sachs said none of those employees or entities were involved in any of the alleged misconduct at the heart of the case. As a result, Goldman Sachs said, “it would be manifestly unfair and highly prejudicial for these individuals to disclose this information.” [their] name.
While the region occasionally allows the modification of the names and personal information of non-parties, particularly during the class certification stage, plaintiffs dispute whether potential non-parties are actually involved in the 1MDB fraud case. In fact, among the redacted names in Goldman’s submission was Goldman’s then-chairman, Lloyd Blankfein, whose statements about 1MDB were particularly controversial in the class certification motion. Likewise, the plaintiffs allege that some of the names Goldman Sachs is seeking to remove include individuals who testified publicly in the trial of Roger Ng, one of the masterminds of the 1MDB fraud.
In any event, Goldman Sachs does not consider its employees or their titles to be private. Therefore, while they may have a privacy interest in retaining personal details such as phone numbers, email addresses or physical addresses, the fact that they were employed by Goldman Sachs during the relevant period does not have a similar privacy interest.
Even if Goldman Sachs kept the names of its employees secret (which it does not), the accusation that opening the documents would be “unfair” and “prejudicial” to the individuals named in them amounts to nothing more than “widespread harm without specific examples or evidence.” accusation”. Explicit reasoning. ” At the very least, the court was not detailed enough to make a “specific, documented finding” that sealing here was necessary to serve a higher value….
