U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied in part and granted in part Clear Street’s motion to seal commercial data, ruling that the firm failed to demonstrate that its financial metrics or employee pay were sufficiently proprietary to overcome the strong presumption of public access.
The dispute centers on former registered broker-dealers Michael Batanjany and other plaintiffs who resigned from Clear Street to join Hidden Road. The plaintiffs allege the firm retaliated against them for whistleblowing on regulatory violations. Clear Street contends the employees breached their employment agreements and were fired for cause.
Clear Street sought to seal testimony and exhibits related to its business size, client numbers, compensation packages, and pricing data, arguing that disclosure would harm its competitive position. Lehrburger ruled that much of the information was either already public, stale, or generic.
The judge denied the request to seal testimony regarding the dollar amounts of Clear Street’s overall business and its derivatives business. Lehrburger noted that Clear Street Derivatives had publicly disclosed in SEC filings that it held 35 total holdings with a portfolio value of about $12.4 million. The firm also touted on its website that it manages approximately $16 billion in customer balances and serves over 700 institutional clients.
"Clear Street has not demonstrated a competing interest that outweighs the strong presumption of public access," Lehrburger wrote regarding the business size metrics.
The court also rejected Clear Street’s bid to seal the total number of its clients, finding the firm offered only "conclusory statements" about how disclosure would harm its strategy. Lehrburger distinguished this from cases where specific client identities are at issue, noting that Clear Street’s top client names were already publicly disclosed.
On the question of compensation, Lehrburger drew a line between the plaintiffs and non-party employees. He denied the motion to seal the plaintiffs’ own compensation information, citing their right to disclose their wages. However, he granted the motion to seal compensation data for non-party present and former employees, characterizing it as sensitive personal information.
The judge also denied Clear Street’s request to seal three email exhibits (42, 43, and 43A) that the firm argued revealed proprietary operational knowledge. Lehrburger found the emails contained high-level, generic information about swap-trading operations and hypothetical portfolios that were commonly known.
Clear Street’s in-house attorney Ken Sicklick testified that he had an "impression" that information in Exhibit 43 was confidential, but Lehrburger noted the attorney "did not identify anything specific or explain what his impression was based on."
The court also denied requests to seal "net spread" pricing data and financial terms of service from 2017, ruling the information was stale and publicly available. Lehrburger granted sealing only for a private home address, personal email, and telephone number in Exhibit 52, citing the individual’s privacy interest.
The preliminary injunction hearing on the underlying dispute was held on November 13 and 20, 2025. Lehrburger has not yet issued a decision on the motion for emergency relief.