Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2019

Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:18-cv-04994
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Leonard v. John Hancock, Judge Hellerstein ordered production of settlement agreements but denied broader communications access and imposed future-contact rules.

Who this affects

The order affects the defendants, putative class members, their counsel, and interim class counsel by requiring production of settlement agreements and regulating future settlement communications.

What happened

Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York concerns the scope of defendants’ production of communications with people who might join the proposed class. The parties asked the court to resolve the issue in a joint letter.

The court ordered the defendants to produce all settlement agreements with putative class members. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion as to all other communications.

Judge Hellerstein also set rules for future settlement contacts: defendants may approach putative class members only through those individuals’ lawyers, must identify interested individuals to interim class counsel at least seven days before substantive discussions, and must allow contacted individuals to seek access to information marked confidential under the protective order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04994
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Nov. 20, 2019

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter dated November 8, 2019, asking the court to decide the scope of the defendants’ production of communications between the defendants and putative class members. A putative class member is someone who may be included in the proposed class but whose membership has not been finally determined.

Ruling on Production

The court ordered the defendants to produce all settlement agreements with putative class members. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion with respect to all other communications.

Rules for Future Communications

The court ordered that the following conditions apply going forward:

  1. The defendants may communicate with putative class members through those individuals’ counsel to determine whether they are interested in discussing settlement. The defendants may approach putative class members only through the putative class members’ counsel.
  2. Once the defendants determine that a putative class member is interested in discussing settlement, they must identify that person to interim class counsel at least seven days before beginning substantive discussions.
  3. A putative class member contacted by defense counsel may apply to the court through interim class counsel or through the person’s own counsel to view information designated “Confidential” under the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order.

The order cited earlier rulings in American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-mc-40 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2019), and Dial Corp. v. News Corp., No. 13-cv-6802, 2015 WL 9256930, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015), as consistent with these conditions.

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.