Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Damian
This Document Relates to: All Actions Involving the Federal Securities Laws
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d), Local Rule 5.4(b), CM/ECF Administrative Procedure
9B, and Section 12.3 of the parties’ operative Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court
[ECF #443] (“Protective Order”), Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge and the plaintiffs named in
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respectfully seek
leave to file under seal an unredacted version of Exhibit B to the Plaintiffs’ Discovery Memorandum
Regarding Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood
Financial LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC (together, “Robinhood”) (the “Discovery
Memorandum”)(ECF No. 587), and that such document remain under seal until the conclusion of
this litigation. S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(b).
In support thereof, Plaintiffs state the following:
1.
The Discovery Memorandum references and attaches Exhibit B, which Robinhood
designated “CONFIDENTIAL” in accordance with the Protective Order. Exhibit B is a three-page
document reflecting correspondence from a governmental entity to Robinhood. Plaintiffs do not
believe they can provide more detailed information concerning the nature of Exhibit B without
revealing its content.
2.
The Protective Order prohibits Plaintiffs from filing this document in unredacted
form on the public record “[w]ithout first receiving written permission from the Designating Party
or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons.” See ECF 443 at Section
12.3. The Protective Order further provides, in pertinent part:
If, prior to the issuance of a ruling on the motion to file under seal, the moving party
elects or is required to publicly file a pleading, motion, memorandum, or other
document that attaches or reveals the content of the proposed sealed material, then
the moving party must redact from the public filing all content that is the subject of
the motion to file under seal.
Id.
In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 590 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2023 Page 1 of 4
2
3.
Plaintiffs do not concede that the Discovery Memorandum and/or any of the materials
cited therein contain confidential information requiring them to be filed under seal. See Shane
Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding in an
antitrust class action that the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ response,
along with the exhibits to each—which included expert reports—were improperly sealed). There is
a strong presumption of public access to judicial documents. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). See also, Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion
Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157,193 (Third Cir. 1993) ( “[T]here is a presumptive right of public
access to pretrial motions of a non-discovery nature, whether preliminary or dispositive, and the
material filed in connection therewith.”)
4.
Absent a contrary Order from this Court, the Protective Order in this case requires
that the above-referenced document be filed under seal. Robinhood Defendants designated the
material at issue “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the Protective Order. As Plaintiffs do not
concede the propriety of maintaining this material under seal, “[t]he burden of demonstrating that a
document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action, in this case
[D]efendants.” DiRussa v. Dean Winter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997). See
generally Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir.
2001)(stating the rule that “material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law
right of access, whereas discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require
judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the common-law right.”). See also, Brown v.
Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating it is “immaterial” whether the
parties have agreed to seal the record when determining whether a document should be publicly
filed).
5.
Plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for the Robinhood Defendants, and they do
not oppose this motion insofar as it seeks an order permitting the designated material to be filed
under seal.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs leave to file
the unredacted Exhibit B to the Discovery Memorandum under seal and that such material remain
under seal until the conclusion of this litigation. S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(b).
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 590 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2023 Page 2 of 4
3
Dated: August 10, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, FBN# 0182877
Phillip Kim
Robin Bronzaft Howald
Jonathan Stern
Brent LaPointe
Michael Cohen
By: /s/ Laurence M. Rosen
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge and
Named Plaintiffs Abraham Huacuja, Ava Bernard,
Brendan Clarke, Brian Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Doi
Nguyen, Joseph Gurney, Marcel Poirier, Sandy Ng,
Santiago Gil Bohórquez, and Thomas Cash
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 590 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2023 Page 3 of 4
4
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with counsel
for Robinhood Defendants, who do not oppose the relief requested in this motion.
/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 10, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served by CM/ECF to the parties registered to the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 590 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2023 Page 4 of 4