Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(15-00293 420) LETTER Addressed To Judge Laura Taylor
(15-00293 420) LETTER Addressed To Judge Laura Taylor
September 6, 2019
ViaECF
Re: S&A Capital Partners, Inc., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.
Civil Action No. 15-CV-293 (LTS) (RWL)
Per your Honor's Order, dated August 21, 2019 (Docket No. 419), the Plaintiffs hereby
submit this filing to articulate their position regarding the unsealing of exhibits previously filed
under seal with respect to the parties' motions for partial summary judgment.
As this Court is aware, the Protective Order in this case (Docket No. 127) provides for
several categories of documents to be designated as confidential, and pursuant to Paragraph 12
of the Protective Order requires that such documents be filed under seal. 1 It was on this basis,
and others expressed herein, that Plaintiffs filed the identified Exhibits under seal.
The majority of the exhibits that Plaintiffs filed under seal were documents Defendants
produced in discovery and marked as "Confidential/Subject to Protective Order." (Exhibit A.)
As the Plaintiffs detailed when responding to this Court's previous request for clarification
regarding the filing of documents under seal (Docket No. 372), the Defendants have been as
indiscriminate in marking documents confidential as they have been unrelenting in their threats
to seek judicial intervention whenever the Plaintiffs so much as reference a document so
labeled. Because the Defendants, prior to your Honor's August 21, 2019 Order, maintained that
no document marked as "Confidential/Subject to Protective Order" may be entered in the public
record, with the exception of the expert reports noted below, the Plaintiffs filed each of these
documents under seal pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order (Docket No. 127).
In response to your Honor's August 21, 2019 Order, Plaintiffs contacted Chase and
1
Paragraph 3(c) of the Protective Order designates as confidential, for the purposes of the Order,
"confidential or proprietary business information or communications, or other confidential research, development,
or commercial information or communications." Paragraph 3(d) designates as confidential, for the purposes of the
Order, "any information ofa personal or intimate nature regarding any individual." Paragraph 4 further designates
as confidential "nonpublic personal information," including "financial or credit information for any person ...
together with personally identifiable information with respect to such person .... "
Foster, Walker &_Di Marco, P.C. I 350 Main Street, Third Floor, Malden, MA 02148
T 781-322-3700 I F 781-322-3757 I www.fwd-law.com
Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 420 Filed 09/06/19 Page 2 of 5
inquired whether Chase would agree to unseal documents they marked as Confidential/Subject to
Protective Order. Chase responded that they agreed to unconditionally unseal some of those
documents, and others subject to redactions. Chase then provided proposed redactions for
Plaintiffs' review and the parties have been and continue to work towards reaching an agreement
as to the scope of the redactions. In fact, the parties have essentially agreed to the scope of
redactions on all but a few documents as of this filing, and anticipate that full agreement can be
achieved expeditiously.
Eight exhibits filed under seal with the Plaintiffs' March 8, 2019 motion for partial
summary judgment were either expert reports or excerpts from the depositions of the parties'
experts. (Docket Nos. 353-10, 353-20, 353-25, 353-27, 353-43, 353-63, 353-93, 353-94.) It has
previously been determined by the parties and this Court that such documents, absent a more
particular grounds for confidentiality, may be filed on the public record. (See Docket Nos. 372,
374.) As such, the Plaintiffs, with the consent of the Defendants, do not object to the unsealing
of these documents.
A further three exhibits are excerpts from the third-party deposition of Erika Lance.
(Docket Nos. 324-72, 353-78, 389-57.) These exhibits were filed under seal pursuant to a
separate Order of this Court relating specifically to this deposition and the deposition of Brian
Bly. (Docket Nos. 249, 250). Plaintiffs contacted counsel for Nationwide Title Clearing (for
whom Lance was employed) and counsel has agreed to unseal the specifically identified exhibits.
Chase takes no position with regard to these documents, so the parties consent that they may be
unsealed.
Two exhibits, Docket Nos. 353-92 and 389-89, are the same document, a QuickBook
report detailing Plaintiff MRS' s expenditures on payroll which was filed under seal pursuant to
Paragraph 3(c) of the Protective Order. Based upon the Court's recent Order, neither Plaintiff
MRS nor Chase object to the unsealing of either Exhibit.
In summary, Plaintiffs and Chase agree to the below with respect to the unsealing of
documents. Where redaction is indicated, it is typically a redaction of borrower information (i.e.,
name and street address of the property), which the parties maintain should remain out of public
view. We anticipate being able to provide redacted exhibits in short order should the Court order
same either for review or public filing.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Roberto L. Di Marco
Roberto L. Di Marco, Esq.
Foster, Walker & Di Marco, P.C.
350 Main Street, Third Floor
Malden, MA 02148
rdimarco@fwd-law.com
FOSTER, WALKER&.._DIMARCO
ATrORNEYS AT LAW