Opinion
1:20-CV-04494 (GHW)
07-13-2022
IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP By: John C. Browne (JB-0391) Jeroen van Kwawegen (JV-1010) Benjamin W. Horowitz (pro hac vice) Jonathan D. Uslaner (JU-1942) Lauren M. Cruz (pro hac vice) Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Handelsbanken and Louisiana Sheriffs, and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON By: Robert D. Klausner (pro hac vice) Additional Counsel for Louisiana Sheriffs SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP By: Richard C. Pepperman II Leonid Traps Christopher M. Viapiano Counsel for Defendant Wells Fargo & Company COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC By: Steven J. Toll (pro hac vice) S.Douglas Bunch (SB-3028) Molly J. Bowen (pro hac vice) Jan E. Messerschmidt (pro hac vice) Laura H. Posner (LP-8612) Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Mississippi and Rhode Island, and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP By: /s/ Nanci L. Clarence (pro hac vice) Josh Cohen (pro hac vice) Adam F. Shearer (pro hac vice) Attorney for Defendant Timothy J. Sloan SWANSON & MCNAMARA LLP By: /s/ Ed Swanson (pro hac vice) Mary McNamara (pro hac vice) Carly Bittman (pro hac vice) Attorney for Defendant John R. Shrewsberry CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP By: /s/ Karin A. DeMasi Carolyn Young Katherine DuBois Attorney for Defendant Allen C. Parker SHERMAN & STERLING LLP By: /s/ John Gueli Stuart Jay Baskin Attorney for Defendant Elizabeth Duke
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP By: John C. Browne (JB-0391) Jeroen van Kwawegen (JV-1010) Benjamin W. Horowitz (pro hac vice) Jonathan D. Uslaner (JU-1942) Lauren M. Cruz (pro hac vice) Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Handelsbanken and Louisiana Sheriffs, and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class
KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON By: Robert D. Klausner (pro hac vice) Additional Counsel for Louisiana Sheriffs
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP By: Richard C. Pepperman II Leonid Traps Christopher M. Viapiano Counsel for Defendant Wells Fargo & Company
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC By: Steven J. Toll (pro hac vice) S.Douglas Bunch (SB-3028) Molly J. Bowen (pro hac vice) Jan E. Messerschmidt (pro hac vice) Laura H. Posner (LP-8612) Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Mississippi and Rhode Island, and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class
CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP By: /s/ Nanci L. Clarence (pro hac vice) Josh Cohen (pro hac vice) Adam F. Shearer (pro hac vice) Attorney for Defendant Timothy J. Sloan
SWANSON & MCNAMARA LLP By: /s/ Ed Swanson (pro hac vice) Mary McNamara (pro hac vice) Carly Bittman (pro hac vice) Attorney for Defendant John R. Shrewsberry
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP By: /s/ Karin A. DeMasi Carolyn Young Katherine DuBois Attorney for Defendant Allen C. Parker
SHERMAN & STERLING LLP By: /s/ John Gueli Stuart Jay Baskin Attorney for Defendant Elizabeth Duke
AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ODER
GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, all of the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties” and each individually, a “Party”) requested that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that they may need to disclose in connection with discovery in this action (the “Protective Order”);
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2021, this Court so ordered the Parties' proposed Protective Order (ECF 105);
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2022, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) issued a letter to Lead Counsel granting Lead Plaintiffs' request for certain documents, but requiring that the Parties first “obtain modification of the current protective order in a form meeting the prior approval of the OCC and other regulators, to protect further disclosure of these materials”;
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a letter to Lead Counsel granting Lead Plaintiffs' request for certain documents, but requiring that the Parties first “obtain modification of the current protective order in a form meeting the prior approval of the [CFPB] and other regulators, to protect further disclosure of these materials”; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the Board of Governors to the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”) issued a letter to Lead Counsel granting Lead Plaintiffs' request for certain documents, but requiring that the Parties first “obtain modification of the current protective order in a form meeting the prior approval of the [Federal Reserve] and other regulators, to protect further disclosure of these materials”;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Protective Order is amended to include the following provisions:
All terms shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Protective Order.
1. Designations: At the request of the OCC, the CFPB, and the Federal Reserve (each an “Authorizing Agency”), any document produced in this action pursuant to a letter of authorization provided by one or more of the Authorizing Agencies, including the three letters described above, shall be designated “CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order. Notwithstanding Paragraph 11 of the Protective Order, the Parties agree that, in connection with this Protective Order, they will not challenge a designation of information as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to a letter of authorization provided by an Authorizing Agency or oppose a motion to file under seal information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to a letter of authorization provided by an Authorizing Agency.
2. Filing Protected Material: Consistent with Paragraph 10 of the Protective Order, the parties will consider information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” by an Authorizing Agency as Confidential Discovery Material. In filing Confidential Discovery Material with this Court, or filing portions of any pleadings, motions, or other papers that disclose such Confidential Discovery Material (“Confidential Court Submission”), the parties shall publicly file a redacted copy of the Confidential Court Submission via the Electronic Case Filing System. In accordance with Rule 4(A) of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, the Parties shall file an unredacted copy of the Confidential Court Submission under seal with the Clerk of this Court, and the Parties shall serve this Court, opposing counsel, and any Authorizing Agency with unredacted courtesy copies of the Confidential Court Submission. If a Party's request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the court, then the Party may file (after providing any affected Authorizing Agency with sufficient notice for the Authorizing Agency to oppose the public filing) the information in the public record pursuant to this Court's Rules of Practice in Civil Cases Rule 4(A)(ii) unless otherwise instructed by the Court.
3. Public Court Proceedings: The Parties shall take steps to avoid disclosing in public court proceedings any information designated as CONFIDENTIAL information of an Authorizing Agency or any information that the Party knows constitutes non-public information or confidential supervisory information (as defined below) of an Authorizing Agency, and shall confer among themselves and with the Court as necessary to put in place procedures to protect the confidentiality of such information.
See 12 C.F.R. § 1070.2(i) (CFPB definition of “confidential supervisory information”); 12 C.F.R § 4.32(b) (OCC definition); 12 C.F.R. § 261.2(b) (Federal Reserve definition).
SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
SO ORDERED