Owens v. New York Life Insurance Company
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-06853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Owens v. New York Life Insurance Company, Judge Rearden granted the parties’ joint motion to stay pending mediation over a cybersecurity incident.
David Owens, New York Life Insurance Company, IMS, and the court’s case-management process were affected by the stay and mediation schedule.
What happened
In Owens v. New York Life Insurance Company, David Owens sued New York Life Insurance Company over issues connected to a cybersecurity incident affecting the systems of third party Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC. Related claims were pending in a consolidated case in the Northern District of Georgia, and the parties agreed to mediation scheduled for March 2025.
The court found that staying the case would serve the parties’ interests and conserve judicial resources. It also allowed the parties to file a joint letter updating the court about the mediation by March 21, 2025.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the joint motion to stay. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and three other applications were terminated without prejudice to restoration if mediation did not resolve this case and the specified related case.
The detailed version
- Owens v. New York Life Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-06853
- Rearden
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The court considered the parties’ joint motion to stay the case. The dispute concerns an alleged late-2023 cybersecurity incident affecting the systems of third party Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC (IMS), which is a client of New York Life Insurance Company. IMS was defending related claims in a consolidated action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. David Owens, IMS, and other parties involved in the related litigation agreed to mediate disputes concerning the incident, including this case. The mediation was scheduled for March 2025.
Reasoning
The court applied five factors used in the Southern District of New York to decide whether to stay a case: the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding quickly and the harm from delay; the defendant’s interests and burden; the courts’ interests; the interests of nonparties; and the public interest. Relying in part on decisions granting stays pending mediation, the court concluded that a stay was appropriate, particularly because it served the parties’ interests and conserved judicial resources.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the parties’ joint motion to stay. The court also granted the parties’ request to file a joint letter updating the court on the mediation by March 21, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 18. Applications at ECF Nos. 10, 12, and 17 were terminated without prejudice to restoration if this case and the specified related case were not resolved through mediation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.