No Sealing of Goldman Sachs Employees’ Names in Securities Fraud Lawsuit

From Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker (S.D.N.Y.) Thursday in Ap-Fonden v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.:

This securities fraud litigation, filed in 2018 arises out of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) scandal. Plaintiffs were investors in Defendant the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (“Goldman”). The parties have moved to seal materials submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for cl، certification….

As a preliminary matter, do،ents submitted in support of a motion for cl، certification are judicial do،ents to which the presumption of public access [to court records] would apply….

In support of its application to maintain certain do،ents under seal, and to allow for the filing of other exhibits with redactions, Goldman notes that it seeks to redact individuals’ names and other personal identifying information of current and former Goldman employees as well as two en،ies and individuals unaffiliated with Goldman. Goldman states that none of t،se employees or en،ies were implicated in any of the alleged wrongdoing at the center of this case. Therefore, Goldman states, “it would be patently unfair and highly prejudicial to these individuals to disclose [their] names.”

While redactions of names and personal information of non-parties is occasionally permitted in this district, particularly at the cl، certification phase, Plaintiffs dispute whether the underlying nonparties are actually implicated in the 1MDB Fraud. In fact, a، the names redacted in Goldman’s submissions is Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s then-chairman, and w،’s statements about 1MDB are specifically at issue in the motion for cl، certification. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that some of the names Goldman seeks to redact include individuals w، testified publicly at the trial of Roger Ng (one of the architects of the 1MDB fraud.)

In any event, Goldman does not contend that its employees or their ،les are nonpublic. Therefore, while they might maintain a privacy interest in having personal details such as p،ne numbers, email addresses, or actual addresses, they do not have a similar privacy interest in the fact of their employment at Goldman during the relevant period.

Even if Goldman kept the names of its employees confidential, which it does not, the allegation that unsealing the do،ents would be “unfair” and “prejudicial” to the individuals named therein is no more than “broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning.” At the very least, it is not detailed enough for this Court to make the “specific, on the record findings” that sealing here is necessary to serve higher values….