Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:18-cv-04994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Leonard v. John Hancock, Judge Hellerstein granted limited sealing of complaint passages and denied the plaintiffs’ sealing motion otherwise.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, the defendant John Hancock companies, and public access to specified portions of the First Amended Class Action Complaint.
What happened
Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York concerned whether certain passages in the plaintiffs’ amended class-action complaint should remain hidden from public view.
The court found that portions of Paragraphs 15, 54, and 61 contained information protected by Canada’s Insurance Companies Act and related regulations. It approved redactions limited to the phrases shown in the defendants’ proposed version of the complaint.
Judge Hellerstein granted the defendants’ motion to maintain those portions under seal and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal in all other respects.
The detailed version
- Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04994
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a redacted First Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants, John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York and John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), asked the court to maintain portions of Paragraphs 15, 54, and 61 under seal. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to seal, identified as ECF No. 115.
Reasoning
The court explained that pleadings generally are accessible to the public, but portions may be sealed when necessary to protect an important legally protected interest and when the proposed redactions are narrowly limited. The court determined that the challenged passages quoted or paraphrased information protected by Canada’s Insurance Companies Act and related regulations. That protected category included supervisory reports and related correspondence prepared for or submitted to Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The court stated that some of this information came from reports prepared by John Hancock’s parent company, Manulife Financial Corporation, for that Canadian regulator.
The court found the proposed redactions narrowly tailored because they covered only a handful of phrases in the 163-paragraph complaint and were no broader than necessary to protect the legally protected information.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to maintain under seal portions of Paragraphs 15, 54, and 61, as shown in Exhibit A to the defendants’ motion. It ordered that the redactions be limited to those in Exhibit A. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal in all other respects and directed the Clerk to terminate the open motions identified as ECF Nos. 115 and 121.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.