Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’S Memorandum In Support Of

Summary

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s (JPMC) memorandum in support of a motion to file under provisional seal, Document 153, filed May 26, 2021 in Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658 (LMB/IDD), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It responds to Chain Bridge's motion to file under provisional seal submitted May 20, 2021. JPMC states that it supports permanently sealing the unredacted version of Exhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald Burke, the Expert Report of Teresa A. Pesce, while the redacted version stays on the public docket. JPMC states that only six lines out of 11 pages are redacted, describing criteria it uses to screen transactions for suspicious activity. A proposed order is attached.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
(Alexandria Division)
BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.,
JOHN J. BROUGH, and
DAVID M. EVINGER,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658 (LMB/IDD)

CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Third-Party Defendant.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO FILE UNDER PROVISIONAL SEAL
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Local Civil Rule 5, and this Court’s
September 24, 2020 Order (Dkt. 37), Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(“JPMC”) submits this memorandum in response to Third-Party Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank,
N.A.’s Motion to File Under Provisional Seal (Dkt. 143), submitted on May 20, 2021.  JPMC
supports permanently sealing the unredacted version of Exhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald
Burke in Support of Defendants’/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Memoranda in Opposition to Blue
Flame Medical LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Motions for Summary Judgment.  A
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153     Filed 05/26/21     Page 1 of 6 PageID#
3972

2

redacted version of the exhibit has been publicly filed at Dkt. 142-5 and JPMC has no objection
to that redacted version remaining public.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2021, Chain Bridge filed an opposition to JPMC’s motion for summary
judgment.  Dkt. 145.  In connection with that filing, Chain Bridge moved for leave to file under
provisional seal Exhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald Burke (Dkt. 142-5), which was
submitted in support of Chain Bridge’s opposition to the motions for summary judgment filed by
Blue Flame Medical LLC and JPMC.  Exhibit 104 is the Expert Report of Teresa A. Pesce,
which JPMC served on Chain Bridge on February 12, 2021.  During discovery, JPMC
designated the report as “Confidential,” and certain portions of the report as “Highly
Confidential,” under the terms of the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and
Protective Order entered in the case.  Dkt. 68 (“Protective Order”).  Before Chain Bridge
submitted the exhibit with its May 20, 2021 opposition, Chain Bridge and JPMC conferred
regarding JPMC’s confidentiality designations.  JPMC agreed that the 11-page exhibit could be
filed on the public docket, so long as six lines detailing specific criteria JPMC uses to screen
transactions for suspicious activity remained redacted; JPMC continues to designate those lines
as “Highly Confidential” under the Protective Order.  Chain Bridge’s memorandum in support of
its motion to seal explains that Chain Bridge’s request for sealing is based on JPMC’s
confidentiality designation.  Dkt. 147.  Chain Bridge takes no position on JPMC’s continued
designation.  Id.
On May 21, 2021, the Court granted Chain Bridge’s motion and ordered that Exhibit 104
shall remain redacted pending the Court’s consideration of any responses filed to Chain Bridge’s
motion.  Dkt. 151.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153     Filed 05/26/21     Page 2 of 6 PageID#
3973

3

ARGUMENT
There is a presumption of public access to court records, but district courts may, in their
discretion, seal documents when the public’s right to access is “outweighed by competing
interests.”  Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).  Before granting a
motion to seal, a court must “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested
parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the
documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal
the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.”  Id.
All three requirements for sealing are satisfied here.
First, the public received notice of the request to seal Exhibit 104 when Chain Bridge
filed its Motion to File Under Provisional Seal on May 20, 2021.  See, e.g., E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 1415638, at *2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2012)
(treating motion to seal and supporting memorandum as public notice).
Second, JPMC seeks the “less drastic alternative” of filing the exhibit in minimally-
redacted form.  ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 2011 WL 7046021, at *2
(E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2011).  JPMC requests that only six lines out of 11 pages be sealed, and does
not object to the already-filed redacted copy of Exhibit 104 remaining on the public docket.
Third, sealing the redacted portions of the exhibit is warranted because the redacted
material contains specific criteria that JPMC uses to screen transactions for suspicious
commercial monetary activity.  Disclosing this material would provide aspiring fraudulent actors
with consequential information about JPMC’s system and would undermine JPMC’s ability to
monitor for suspicious activity.  A business’s “strong interest in preserving the confidentiality of
its proprietary and trade-secret information … may justify partial sealing of court record.”  Doe
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153     Filed 05/26/21     Page 3 of 6 PageID#
3974

4

v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 269 (4th Cir. 2014).  Courts in the Fourth Circuit routinely grant
motions to seal trade secrets and other commercially sensitive information—including the details
of fraud screening and prevention programs.  See, e.g., BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth
Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org., 2020 WL 973751, at *15 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2020) (granting motion to
seal documents describing “business strategy … as well as other confidential commercial
information”); Trapp v. Suntrust Bank, 2016 WL 6833986, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 18, 2016)
(sealing confidential business information that concerned “preventing fraud”); Regscan, Inc. v.
Bureau of Nat’l Affs., Inc., 2012 WL 12903672, at *1-2 (E.D. Va. May 22, 2012) (sealing
document that contained trade secrets in form of confidential business plans).  So do courts
elsewhere.  See, e.g., In re Rocket Fuel Inc. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 344983, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
24, 2017) (sealing documents containing details of fraud-screening methodology); Bohannon v.
Facebook, Inc., 2014 WL 5598222, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (sealing documents
containing fraud-detection policies).
The specific suspicious-activity rules that the Blue Flame wire transfer triggered in
JPMC’s monitoring system do not bear on the Court’s resolution of the motions for summary
judgment pending before it, or indeed any issue in this litigation.  So, redacting those rules from
the docket would leave public the “legal and factual issues” raised by this case.  ActiveVideo
Networks, 2011 WL 7046021, at *1.  JPMC, meanwhile, has a significant interest in keeping
confidential the details of its suspicious-activity monitoring program—namely, “to prevent
disclosure that could aid fraudulent actors in evading the system.”  In re Rocket Fuel, 2017 WL
344983, at *6.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153     Filed 05/26/21     Page 4 of 6 PageID#
3975

5

CONCLUSION
The unredacted version of Exhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald Burke should remain
under permanent seal, and the redacted version of the same (Dkt. 142-5) should remain on the
public docket.  A proposed order reflecting the requested relief is attached hereto.
Dated:  May 26, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
/s/ Meredith K. Loretta

Meredith K. Loretta (92369)
Albinas J. Prizgintas (pro hac vice)
Whitney Russell (pro hac vice)
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC  20006
Tel.: (202) 663-6981
Fax: (202) 663-6363
meredith.loretta@wilmerhale.com

Alan E. Schoenfeld (pro hac vice)
Marissa W. Medine (pro hac vice)
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY  10007
Tel.: (212) 230-8800
Fax: (212) 230-8888
alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com

Felicia Ellsworth (pro hac vice)
60 State Street
Boston, MA  02109
Tel.: (617) 526-6000
Fax: (617) 526-5000
felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com

Margarita M. Botero (pro hac vice)
1225 17th Street, Suite 2600
Denver, CO  80202
Tel.: (720) 274-3135
Fax: (720) 274-3133
margarita.botero@wilmerhale.com

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153     Filed 05/26/21     Page 5 of 6 PageID#
3976

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 26th day of May, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing using the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing to all counsel of
record.
/s/ Meredith K. Loretta

Meredith K. Loretta
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC  20006
Tel.: (202) 663-6981
meredith.loretta@wilmerhale.com

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153     Filed 05/26/21     Page 6 of 6 PageID#
3977

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.153.0.pdf

Size

173,632 bytes

SHA-256

393c8b52b2f715ece821eef0130b9d95432cbb16b7e1ae3c81ea2bc1143a6a53

Our copy

gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.153.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)