Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2025

Standard Insurance Company v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:25-cv-00212
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureInsurance
In one sentence

In Standard Insurance Company v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company, Judge Broderick allowed a reply to be filed under seal and in redacted public form.

Who this affects

Standard Insurance Company, Minnesota Life Insurance Company, and Securian Financial Group, Inc.; the ruling concerns public access to Standard’s reply and commercially sensitive information.

What happened

Standard Insurance Company asked the court for permission to file its reply supporting a motion concerning the opposing parties’ counterclaims under seal and to file a public version with redactions.

The company said the reply contained commercially sensitive information about a transaction, possible earn-out payments, and clients that ended or planned to end their plans. Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Securian Financial Group, Inc. consented to the request.

The court approved the requested filing arrangement, as shown by the “SO ORDERED” notation signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick. The opinion text does not separately state the ruling in a longer order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Standard Insurance Company v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company · No. 1:25-cv-00212
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 11, 2025

Background

Standard Insurance Company asked for leave to file under seal its reply memorandum supporting its motion to partially dismiss counterclaims brought by Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Securian Financial Group, Inc., or to compel arbitration. Standard also asked to file a public version of the reply containing redactions.

Reasons for the Request

Standard stated that the reply discussed commercially sensitive information concerning the parties’ transaction, potential earn-out payments, and the number and percentage of clients who terminated or discontinued their plans—or gave written notice of their definite intention to do so—after the transaction. Standard argued that disclosure could harm a litigant’s competitive position. The Securian Entities consented to filing the materials under seal and with redactions.

Ruling

The letter ends with an “SO ORDERED” notation signed by Vernon S. Broderick and dated June 11, 2025. Based on that notation, the court approved Standard’s requests to file the reply under seal and to file a public version with redactions. The available text does not provide a separate, more detailed explanation of the court’s ruling.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.