Arbol Inc. v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-01390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Arbol v. HCC, Judge Torres granted requests to amend the complaint, extend defendants’ response deadline, and address sealing of exhibits.
Arbol Inc.; HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.; Scott Klemm; non-party Deel, Inc.; and third parties whose personal information appears in the exhibits.
What happened
Arbol Inc. v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. involved requests about an amended complaint, filing deadlines, and keeping certain exhibits or information from public view. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The court allowed Arbol to file an amended complaint by April 30, 2025, and allowed HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. and Scott Klemm to answer or otherwise respond by May 21, 2025. It also approved limited redactions to Exhibits 3 and 4, kept the unredacted versions sealed, and allowed redacted versions to be filed without another sealing request.
Judge Analisa Torres also extended Deel, Inc.’s deadline to May 13, 2025, to explain why Exhibit 2 should remain sealed or why proposed redactions are appropriate. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 14–17.
The detailed version
- Arbol Inc. v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01390
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 29, 2025
Nature of the Order
The Court ruled on the parties’ letters dated April 28, 2025. This was a procedural order addressing amendment of the complaint, response deadlines, and sealing of exhibits; it did not decide the merits of Arbol’s claims.
Amended Complaint and Response Deadline
The Court granted the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Arbol was directed to file the amended complaint by April 30, 2025. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for an extension of the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. and Scott Klemm were directed to answer or otherwise respond by May 21, 2025.
Exhibits 3 and 4
The Court granted Arbol’s request to file Exhibits 3 and 4 to the proposed amended complaint with limited redactions. It determined that the exhibits were judicial documents because they were attached to a proposed pleading. The Court concluded that third parties’ interests in personal information—including addresses, identification numbers, salary, and benefits—outweighed the presumption of public access, and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored. The unredacted versions, filed at ECF Nos. 16-4 and 16-5, were to remain sealed. Arbol could file redacted versions without making another request for permission to file the exhibits under seal.
Exhibit 2 and Deel’s Deadline
The Court granted Arbol’s request to extend the time for non-party Deel, Inc. to justify sealing Exhibit 2 or to explain why narrower proposed redactions would be appropriate. Deel, through counsel or through Arbol, was directed to file its position by May 13, 2025. The Court cautioned that confidentiality agreed to by contract does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 14–17. Judge Analisa Torres entered the order on April 29, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.