[Proposed] Order Granting Motion For Leave To File Under Seal

Summary

A proposed order, Document 153-1 filed 05/26/21 in Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658 (LMB/IDD), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division). It would grant Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.'s motion to file under provisional seal Exhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald Burke, the Expert Report of Teresa A. Pesce that JPMC served on February 12, 2021. The order recites that JPMC agreed the exhibit could be filed publicly if six lines on screening criteria stayed redacted. It would provide that the unredacted exhibit remains under permanent seal and the redacted version remains on the public docket. The signature block names Leonie M. Brinkema.

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.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Before the Court is Third-Party Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.’s Motion to File Under
Provisional Seal (Dkt. 143), submitted on May 20, 2021.  As directed by this Court’s September
24, 2020 Order (Dkt. 37), Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”) has
filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion to File Under Provisional Seal (Dkt. __).
Chain Bridge requested leave to file under provisional seal Exhibit 104 to the Declaration
of Donald Burke (Dkt. 142-5), 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
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153-1     Filed 05/26/21     Page 1 of 4 PageID#
3978

2

“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 filed a public, narrowly-redacted version of
the exhibit at Dkt. 142-5.  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.

In JPMC’s Memorandum in Support, JPMC represents that sealing the exhibit is
warranted because it refers to certain of JPMC’s suspicious-activity screening rules, the public
disclosure of which would inhibit JPMC’s future efforts to monitor for such activity.  JPMC
further proposes that the redacted version of the exhibit (Dkt. 142-5) remain public.
There is a presumption of public access to court records.  See 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.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153-1     Filed 05/26/21     Page 2 of 4 PageID#
3979

3

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).
Second, JPMC has not asked the Court to seal the exhibit in its entirety.  Instead, 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).
Third, the information sought to be sealed is confidential and its sealing will not inhibit
the public’s ability to observe and understand these proceedings.  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 a roadmap
around JPMC’s system and would undermine JPMC’s ability to monitor for such 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 v. Public Citizen,
749 F.3d 246, 269 (4th Cir. 2014).  Sealing is appropriate to protect 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); accord, 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
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153-1     Filed 05/26/21     Page 3 of 4 PageID#
3980

4

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.  So redacting those rules from the docket would leave public the
“legal and factual issues” raised by the motions.  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.
CONCLUSION
The unredacted version of Exhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald Burke shall remain
under permanent seal, and the redacted version of the same (Dkt. 142-5) shall remain on the
public docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED this ____ day of _____________, 2021.

__________________________________
Leonie M. Brinkema
United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD     Document 153-1     Filed 05/26/21     Page 4 of 4 PageID#
3981

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.153.1.pdf

Size

160,591 bytes

SHA-256

dd13e59251299641d8ac5d7d752018885671d1e9c9b42c2e7dbb06679841c6f1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.153.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)