The Travelers Indem. Co., et al. v. Northrup Grumman Corp., et al.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:12-cv-03040
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrup Grumman Corp., Judge Schofield denied Newsday’s unsealing application but allowed a later intervention motion meeting specified requirements.
Newsday LLC, which may file a motion to intervene seeking unsealing, and the parties whose filings or records are subject to sealing. The order did not itself unseal any records.
What happened
The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrup Grumman Corp. is an insurance-coverage dispute involving alleged contamination around facilities, including land and groundwater. Newsday LLC asked the court to unseal filings connected to the parties’ summary-judgment motions, arguing that the public and press have rights of access to those records.
The court denied Newsday’s application. It said Newsday may instead file a motion to intervene for the purpose of seeking unsealing. That motion must identify the records specifically and explain the delay in seeking intervention. The court set November 26, 2025, for the motion and December 12, 2025, for any response.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the ruling. The text does not show that the court decided whether the records must ultimately be unsealed; it addressed only Newsday’s application and the procedure for filing a motion to intervene.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indem. Co., et al. v. Northrup Grumman Corp., et al. · No. 1:12-cv-03040
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
The underlying action is described as an insurance-coverage dispute involving Travelers Indemnity Company, Northrup Grumman Corporation, and nominal defendant Century Indemnity Company. The dispute concerns alleged contamination of land and groundwater around Grumman’s facilities, including a plant and community park in Bethpage, New York.
Newsday LLC submitted an application asking the court to unseal filings connected to the parties’ summary-judgment motions. Newsday argued that the filings—including motion briefs, statements of material facts, affidavits, and exhibits—were subject to a strong common-law presumption of public access and a First Amendment right of access. Newsday also argued that the parties’ confidentiality designations and the existing sealing orders did not satisfy the standards for restricting access.
The application materials asserted that numerous filings were sealed or heavily redacted based on designations under a stipulated protective order. The opinion text contains Newsday’s arguments but does not state that the court adopted them or decide the ultimate merits of unsealing the records.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application DENIED.” It nevertheless permitted Newsday LLC to file a motion to intervene in the action for the purpose of seeking to unseal the records at issue. The court required that the motion identify the records sought with specificity and explain the basis for the delay in seeking intervention.
The court set November 26, 2025, as the deadline for Newsday’s motion and December 12, 2025, as the deadline for any response. The ruling therefore denied the application presented in the letter but established a procedural route for Newsday to pursue its unsealing request. It did not, based on the provided text, order any records unsealed or decide the parties’ underlying insurance dispute. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.