Standard Insurance Company v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-00212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Standard Insurance v. Minnesota Life, Judge Broderick granted defendants’ application to file redacted pleadings publicly and unredacted versions under seal.
Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Securian Financial Group, Inc., whose redacted pleading may be filed publicly and whose unredacted pleading may be filed under seal; Standard Insurance Company consented to the request.
What happened
Standard Insurance Company sued Minnesota Life Insurance Company and others. Defendants Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Securian Financial Group, Inc. asked to file their answer, defenses, and counterclaims publicly in redacted form and to file unredacted versions under seal. Standard consented.
The requested redactions concerned commercially sensitive information, including acquisition and potential earn-out amounts, retirement-plan asset values, client terminations, retention expenses and strategies, and information about a retirement plan relevant to defendants’ potential earn-out payment. Defendants also copied portions of the amended complaint into their answer, including material previously approved for redaction.
The court granted the application. Judge Vernon S. Broderick permitted the defendants to file the redacted pleading publicly and the unredacted version under seal, consistent with the redactions previously allowed for Standard’s amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Standard Insurance Company v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company · No. 1:25-cv-00212
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 21, 2025
Request
Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Securian Financial Group, Inc. requested permission to file their answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims in two versions: a public version containing redactions and an unredacted version under seal. Standard Insurance Company consented to the request.
Information at Issue
The defendants sought redactions in copied portions of their answer that corresponded to information the court had previously permitted Standard to redact from its amended complaint. That information included the price paid to acquire the business, potential earn-out payments, the value of assets underlying retirement plans, client termination information, retention expenses, and business strategies for retaining clients.
The defendants also sought to redact commercially sensitive information in their counterclaim. This included the value of assets under administration in a retirement plan that defendants said had not terminated or discontinued recordkeeping services with Standard, as well as additional references to potential earn-out payments. The defendants asked the court to rely on the reasons previously cited for allowing redactions in Standard’s amended complaint.
Ruling
The court’s order states “APPLICATION GRANTED” and “SO ORDERED.” Judge Vernon S. Broderick therefore granted the defendants’ application to file a redacted public version of their answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims and an unredacted version under seal. The order does not provide additional reasoning beyond the defendants’ request and its reference to the court’s earlier sealing ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.