Boothe v. First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-03927
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Boothe v. Reliance Standard: Judge Failla denied without prejudice a request to seal the administrative record because it was filed incorrectly.
Pearline Boothe and Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, regarding the filing of Boothe’s administrative record.
What happened
In Pearline Boothe v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Boothe asked to file under seal the administrative record in her claim for group long-term disability benefits. The case is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The record contains 5,113 pages, including medical information and personal details such as addresses, birth dates, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers. Reliance Standard consented to the request.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the request without prejudice because the parties had to ask for permission to seal the record at the same time they filed the record under seal. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Boothe v. First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-03927
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 11, 2025
Background
Pearline Boothe brought an action to recover group long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. She asked the court for permission to keep the administrative record under seal. The administrative record is the material compiled during the benefits claim process and is expected to be reviewed in connection with summary-judgment motions.
The record is 5,113 pages long and contains thousands of pages of medical records. The letter requesting sealing stated that the record includes sensitive personal information, including addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and clinical information. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company consented to the request.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that, under Rule 9(C)(ii) of its Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, parties must seek permission to file a document under seal at the same time that they file the document itself under seal through the court’s electronic filing system. Because the parties appeared likely to file the administrative record shortly and had not followed that procedure, the court denied the request without prejudice to its renewal in accordance with Rule 9(C)(ii). The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 28. The order did not decide whether the administrative record ultimately should be sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.