□□□ SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

The Honorable Edgardo Ramos October 21, 2025 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: = Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank (No. 1:22-cv-03320); Moore v. Standard Chartered Bank (No. 1:23-cev-02834); Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered Bank (No. 1:23-cv-02865) Dear Judge Ramos: Pursuant to the Court’s October 7, 2025 Order (see Bonacasa, ECF No. 225), Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases respectfully seek permission to (1) file a redacted public version of Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law in support of their motion for leave to file amended complaints and (2) file redacted public versions of Exhibits B—H. Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law references information that Defendant Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”) has designated as Confidential under the Protective Order and information that third- party PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd. (“PwC”) has designated as Highly Confidential under the Protective Order. See, e.g., Bonacasa, ECF No. 57. Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaints (Exs. B—D) and redlines (Exs. E-G) reference information that SCB and third-party The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY”) have designated as Confidential under the Protective Order and information that PwC has designated as Highly Confidential under the Protective Order. Finally, Exhibit H references information that third-party BNY has designated as Confidential under the Protective Order and information that third-parties PwC and Midwest Fertilizer Corporation (“MFC”) have designated as Highly Confidential under the Protective Order. Plaintiffs are contemporaneously filing with this letter: (1) a public version of the memorandum of law and exhibits with the proposed redactions applied and (2) under-seal versions of the memorandum of law and exhibits with the proposed redactions highlighted. Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs take no position on the redactions at this time. See Protective Order, § 12.1 (“[A] Receiving Party may rely on the Designating Party’s designation of any Discovery Material and need not independently verify, or take a position on, such Designating Party’s designation.”). However, if the Court grants the motion and permits Plaintiffs to file their proposed amended complaints, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the amended complaints be filed on the public docket without any redactions. See, e.g., Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP,

, 140 (2d Cir. 2016) (“A complaint, which initiates judicial proceedings, is the cornerstone of every case, the very architecture of the lawsuit, and access to the complaint is almost always necessary if the public is to understand a court’s decision.” (citation omitted)). SCB’s Position: SCB respectfully requests that certain information in Plaintiffs’ letter excerpted from materials designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order—including non-public information and analyses related to SCB’s customer relationships—be redacted from Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law and proposed amended complaints (and from the amended complaints filed on the docket in the event the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to amend). Prevailing Second Circuit law supports the redaction of these excerpts, because the information

was excerpted from documents that were properly designated confidential under the Protective Order, and “Courts in [the Second Circuit] routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information in order to protect confidential business and financial information.” BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2024) (approving targeted redactions to complaint); Stegmann on Behalf of Covetrus, Inc. v. Wolin,

(E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021) (approving redactions to a complaint where “the redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against disclosure of confidential and commercially sensitive information”); Refco Group Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.,

(S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (permitting redactions to motion to amend and proposed amended complaint). PwC’s Position: Non-party PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (“PwC”) has designated the referenced information (i.e., PwCIL_000001, PwCIL_000008, and deposition questions referencing those two documents) as Highly Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in this Action and requests that such information in Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law and exhibits be redacted. See Protective Order. This Court previously granted a request to seal confidential business information from the same document in this case. See Dkt. 198; see also Dkt. 138, 144 (also granting requests to seal confidential business information). As before, the information at issue reflects non-public internal processes and highly confidential business information related to PwC and member firms in the PwC network. Such a request is “routinely granted in this jurisdiction,” particularly for a third party. In re B & C KB Holding GmbH, No. 22-MC-180 (LAK) (VF),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2023) (“[C]ourts in this District routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information in order to protect confidential business and financial information.”); see also Graczyk v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No. 18 CIV. 6465 (PGG),

, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (same and citing cases); Statoil (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian Nat’l Petroleum Corp., No. 18 CIV. 2392 (RMB),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2020) (“The privacy interests of innocent third-parties ... should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation when determining whether to grant an application to seal.”) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, the information in question is “directly from an internal document” produced in discovery and “designated as highly confidential” under a protective order. In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., No. 14-MC-2542 (VSB),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2014) (granting motion to seal for information “directly from an internal document produced by [defendant] in limited expedited discovery and designated as highly confidential under the Protective Order”). Accordingly, PwC respectfully requests that the referenced information be redacted and remain under seal. BNY’s Position: Non-party BNY designated the entire deposition transcript of Vinu Kurian as Confidential under the relevant Protective Order. See Dkt. 18. “Courts in this District routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business interests and financial information.” IBM Corp. v. Micro Focus United States, Inc., No. 22-cv- 9910 (VB)(VR),

, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2023); see also Nielson Consumer LLC v. Circana Grp., L.P., No. 22-CV-3235 (JPO)(KHP),

, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2024) (sealing is appropriate to protect “sensitive business information”); Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (permitting redactions of confidential business information for a privately held business, which “implicates legitimate privacy interests”); Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tod's S.P.A. & Deva, Inc., No. 23-cv-3255 (JGLC),

, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2024) (“Courts in this District routinely seal documents to prevent the disclosure of confidential business information”). The deposition transcript at issue contains BNY’s confidential business information, including its internal practices and procedures related to American Depository Receipts clients generally, and the management of its relationship with Fatima in particular. In addition, the underlying documents that are the subject of the witness’s testimony were marked confidential when produced, and those documents contain non-public information and analyses related to the bank’s systems and controls and customer relationships, the same types of information that have been sealed in this case upon the request of the Defendant. See Dkts. 36, 42. MFC’s Position: Non-party MFC has designated the referenced information (i.e., MB-9, MB-10, MB_11, and deposition questions referencing those two documents) as Highly Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in this Action and requests that such information in Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law and exhibits be redacted. See Protective Order and In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., No. 14-MC-2542 (VSB),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2014) (granting motion to seal for information “directly from an internal document produced by [defendant] in limited expedited discovery and designated as highly confidential under the Protective Order”). *** For these reasons, Plaintiffs, SCB, PwC, BNY, and MFC respectfully request that the Court grant the request to redact the referenced information contained in Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law and Exhibits B–H. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel D. Duhaime Ian M. Gore Lee Wolosky SUSMAN GODFREY LLP Andrew J. Lichtman 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Kathryn E. Bolas Seattle, WA 98101 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Tel: (206) 516-3880 787 Seventh Avenue [email protected] New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 728-8000 Steven G. Sklaver [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY LLP [email protected] 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 [email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 789-3100 Andrianna Kastanek [email protected] JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Seth D. Ard Chicago, IL 60654 Daniel D. Duhaime Tel: (312) 222-9350 SUSMAN GODFREY LLP [email protected] One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Rupali Srivastava Tel: (212) 336-8330 JENNER & BLOCK LLP [email protected] 1155 Avenue of the Americas [email protected] New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 891-1628 Eli J. Kay-Oliphant [email protected] Adam J. Goldstein [email protected] Tejinder Singh Ryan R. Sparacino Gary M. Osen SPARACINO PLLC Ari Ungar 1920 L Street, Northwest, Suite 835 Michael J. Radine Washington, DC 20036 OSEN LLC [email protected] 190 Moore Street, Suite 272 [email protected] Hackensack, NJ 07601 [email protected] Tel: (201) 265-6400 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Smedinghoff Plaintiffs [email protected]

Counsel for Bonacasa and Moore Plaintiffs Page 5 October 21, 2025

/s/ Andrew J. Finn (with permission) /s/ David A. Gordon (with permission) Sharon L. Nelles David A. Gordon Andrew J. Finn SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP One South Dearborn 125 Broad Street Chicago, IL 60603 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (312) 853-7000 Tel: (212) 558-4000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Nonparty PricewaterhouseCoopers International Counsel for Defendant Standard Ltd. Chartered Bank /s/ Paul Vink (with permission) /s/ Natsayi Z._ Mawere (with permission) Paul Vink Natsayi Z. Mawere Bose McKinney & Evans LLP REED SMITH LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor Indianapolis, Indiana 36204 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (317) 684-5000 Tel: (212) 521-5400 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Nonparty Midwest Fertilizer | Counsel for Nonparty The Bank of New Corporation York Mellon

The application is X__ granted __— denied

Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J Dated: October 22, 2025 New York, New York