Prosser v. New York Life Insurance Company
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-06930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Prosser v. New York Life Insurance Company: Judge Rearden granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the case in connection with mediation.
Chianti Prosser and New York Life Insurance Company, whose case was paused in connection with mediation; the court also required a joint mediation-status update by March 21, 2025.
What happened
In Chianti Prosser v. New York Life Insurance Company, the parties jointly asked the court to pause the case. The dispute concerns an alleged cybersecurity incident affecting the systems of third-party Infosys McCamish Sys., LLC, a client of New York Life Insurance Company.
The parties, along with others involved in related litigation, agreed to mediation scheduled for March 2025. The court considered factors involving possible delay, burdens on the parties, court resources, nonparties, and the public interest.
The court found that a stay was appropriate to serve the parties’ interests and conserve judicial resources. Judge Rearden granted the joint motion and allowed the parties to file a joint update about the mediation by March 21, 2025.
The detailed version
- Prosser v. New York Life Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-06930
- Rearden
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The court considered the parties’ joint motion to stay, or pause, the case. The dispute concerns an alleged cybersecurity incident that affected the systems of third-party Infosys McCamish Sys., LLC ("IMS") in late 2023. New York Life Insurance Company is an IMS client.
IMS is defending claims about the incident in a consolidated action in the Northern District of Georgia, No. 24 Civ. 995. Chianti Prosser, IMS, and other parties involved in that litigation agreed to mediation concerning the litigation related to the incident, including this case. The mediation was scheduled for March 2025.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that decisions about stays in the Southern District of New York consider five factors: the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding quickly and the possible harm from delay; the defendant’s interests and burdens; the courts’ interests; the interests of people who are not parties; and the public interest.
Applying those factors, the court concluded that a stay was appropriate. The court specifically cited the parties’ interests and the conservation of judicial resources.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the case. The court also granted the parties’ request to file a joint letter updating the court on the mediation by March 21, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 10, the docket entry for the motion. The order did not state how long the stay would last or set a separate deadline for ending it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.