Order Granting Motion For Leave To File Under Seal
- Date
- 2021-05-27
Summary
An Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, filed May 27, 2021 as Document 154 in Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, signed by United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. It addresses Chain Bridge Bank's motion (Dkt. 143) to file Exhibit 104, an expert report served by third-party defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., under provisional seal. JPMC argued that six redacted lines describe criteria it uses to screen transactions for suspicious activity. The court, citing Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, finds the sealing requirements satisfied. It orders the unredacted Exhibit 104 to remain under permanent seal and the redacted version (Dkt. 142-5) to remain on the public docket.
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
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 154 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
3982
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
(Alexandria Division)
BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,
Plaintiff,
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK,N.A.,
JOHNJ.BROUGH,and Civil Action No.1:20-cv-00658(LMB/IDD)
DAVID M.EVINGER,
Defendants.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK,N.A.,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
V.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,N.A.,
Third-Party Defendant.
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.153).
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 ofthe report as
1
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 154 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
3983
"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 ofany
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 ofJPMC'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 ofthe exhibit(Dkt. 142-5)remain public.
There is a presumption ofpublic access to court records. SeeAshcraft 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 ofthe 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 Courtfinds that all requirements for sealing are satisfied here.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 154 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
3984
Firsts the public received notice ofthe 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 Font 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" offiling 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 ofits proprietary and
trade-secret information ... may justify partial sealing ofcourt 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 offraud screening and prevention
programs. See, e.g.,BASFPlant 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. SuntrustBank,2016
WL 6833986,at*3(M.D.N.C. Nov. 18,20.16)(sealing confidential business information that
concerned "preventing fraud"); Inc. v. Bureau ofNat'lAffs., 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 FuelInc. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 344983,at
*6(N.D. Cal. Jan.24,2017)(sealing documents containing details offraud-screening
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 154 Filed 05/27/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
3985
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 transfa:triggered in
JPMC's monitoring system do not bear on the Court's resolution ofthe 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. Active Video Networks,2011 WL 7046021,at
*1. JPMC,meanwhile, has a significant interest in keeping confidential the details ofits
suspicious-activity monitoring program—^namely,"to prevent disclosure that could aid
fraudulent actors in evading the system." In re RocketFuel,2017 WL 344983,at *6.
CONCLUSION
The unredacted version ofExhibit 104 to the Declaration of Donald Burke shall remain
under permanent seal, and the redacted version ofthe 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
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.154.0.pdf
- Size
- 224,371 bytes
- SHA-256
- ef7726fe2646180f2f588e0486a2dace588253d0dbdaa11d5a0f7b150f0ef5f9
- Original
- PACER (login required)