Edith and Carl Marks Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst v. Berkshire…
Edith and Carl Marks Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst, Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-00336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marks Jewish Community House v. Berkshire Hathaway, Judge Cronan granted Berkshire Hathaway’s request to seal part of its summary-judgment reply about ongoing Child Victims Act cases.
Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company may file the identified excerpt of its summary-judgment reply under seal; public access is limited as to that excerpt.
What happened
Edith and Carl Marks Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst, Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company concerns a request by Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company to seal part of a reply supporting its motion for partial summary judgment. The requested section discussed underlying New York Child Victims Act cases.
Berkshire Hathaway asked to file only Section III of its reply under seal, and the plaintiffs did not object. The company said the section contained sensitive information about ongoing Child Victims Act cases and potentially related cases.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request. He found that the information was sensitive and that sealing only the identified excerpt was narrowly tailored, so Berkshire Hathaway may file that excerpt under seal.
The detailed version
- Edith and Carl Marks Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst v. Berkshire… · No. 1:23-cv-00336
- John Cronan
- Mar. 13, 2025
Request
Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company, formerly identified in the filing as American Centennial Insurance Company, asked to file under seal Section III of its reply supporting its motion for partial summary judgment based on “expected or intended” abuse. The requested section concerned underlying New York Child Victims Act cases and potentially other related cases. The plaintiffs did not object to the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that documents submitted in connection with a summary-judgment motion generally have a qualified First Amendment right of public access. That right is not absolute, however. A court may seal judicial documents when specific findings show that sealing is necessary to protect higher interests and is narrowly tailored.
The court found that the requested excerpt contained sensitive information about underlying New York Child Victims Act cases that remained ongoing, as well as potentially related cases. It also noted that Berkshire Hathaway sought to seal only part of the reply rather than the entire brief.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request. The court held that sealing was warranted and authorized Berkshire Hathaway to file the identified excerpt under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.