Full text
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
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Third-Party Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Before the Court are the Motion to File Audio Recording Supporting Motion for Summary
Judgment Under Provisional Seal (Dkt. No. 115) filed by Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan) and the Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal for Good Cause
(Dkt. No. 125) filed by Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical LLC (Blue Flame), both dated May 6, 2021
(collectively, the Motions to Seal). As directed in this Court’s Order of May 7, 2021 (Dkt. No.
133), Defendants Chain Bridge Bank, N.A. John J. Brough, and David M. Evinger have filed a
Memorandum in Support of the Motions to Seal (Dkt. No. __).
In the Motions to Seal, JPMorgan requested leave to file under seal Exhibit 5 to the
Declaration of Meredith K. Loretta (Dkt. No. 113-1) submitted in support of JPMorgan’s motion
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 134-1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
3255
2
for summary judgment, and Blue Flame requested leave to file under seal Exhibit 30 to the
Affirmation of Peter H. White (Dkt. No. 132) submitted in support of Blue Flame’s motion for
summary judgment. Those two exhibits reproduce the same audio recording of a March 25, 2020,
phone call between two Chain Bridge employees, which Defendants produced in discovery with
the Bates label CBB00002797 and designated as “Confidential” under the terms of the Protective
Order entered in this case. The memoranda in support of the Motions to Seal explain that
JPMorgan’s and Blue Flame’s requests for sealing are based on Defendants’ designation of the
audio recording as Confidential under the Protective Order. Dkt. No. 116, Dkt. No. 126.
In Defendants’ Memorandum in Support, Defendants submit that sealing of the exhibits is
warranted because the audio recording contains a brief reference to the identity of a non-party
Chain Bridge customer and that customer’s use of a particular financial product. Defendants
propose filing a redacted version of the audio recording for the public docket, with a one-second
redaction applied in order to avoid disclosure of the non-party customer’s identity.
There is a “presumption” favoring public access to court records and documents. Ashcraft
v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). “Accordingly, before a district court may seal
any court documents, . . . it 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.
The Court finds that all requirements for sealing are satisfied here. The public received
notice of the request when JPMorgan and Blue Flame filed their Motions to Seal on May 6, 2021.
See, e.g., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-CV-058, 2012 WL
1415638, at *2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2012). Furthermore, Defendants have not asked the Court to
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 134-1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
3256
3
seal the exhibits in their entirety. Rather, Defendants seek the “less drastic alternative” of filing
the exhibits in redacted form. See, e.g., ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
No. 2:10-CV-248, 2011 WL 7046021, at *2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2011). Lastly, the Court finds that
the information at issue is properly viewed as confidential and redacting it will not limit the
public’s ability to observe and understand these proceedings. The non-party Chain Bridge
customer has a “justifiable expectation of privacy that [its] name[] and financial records not be
revealed to the public.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 477 (6th Cir. 1983); see
also; SunTrust Mortg., Inc. v. North Shore Bank, No. 3:14-CV-385, 2015 WL 12778624, at *1
(E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2015). Those “interests in privacy are sufficiently compelling to justify non-
disclosure” of a non-party customer’s identity in this context. In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.,
723 F.2d at 477. The information that Defendants have proposed for redaction does not bear on
the issues presented for decision in this case. Permitting “modest redaction,” as Defendants
propose here, therefore would not obscure from the public’s view “the parties’ positions” in this
litigation or the “legal and factual issues” before the court. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., 2011 WL
7046021, at *1.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motions to Seal. The Court ORDERS that
Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Meredith K. Loretta and Exhibit 30 to the Affirmation of Peter H.
White shall be maintained permanently under seal, and further ORDERS that Defendants shall file
redacted, public versions of these exhibits by submitting audio recordings to the Court on a
compact disc, pursuant to the procedure described in the Court’s May 5, 2021 Order Granting
Consent Motion for Leave to Submit Audio Files (Dkt No. 111).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 134-1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
3257
4
ENTERED this ______ day of _______________ 2021.
_________________________________
Leonie M. Brinkema
United States District Judge
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 134-1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
3258