Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2020

Haley v. Teachers Investment and Annuity Association

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:17-cv-00855
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Haley v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, Judge Lehrburger granted a request to redact one dollar figure from a transcript.

Who this affects

The order affects TIAA, the plaintiff, and the public version of the June 12, 2020 hearing transcript by permitting one dollar figure to be redacted.

What happened

In Haley v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, the defendant asked the court to redact a specific dollar amount from a transcript of a June 12, 2020 hearing.

The defendant said the amount represented confidential business information about compensation from its collateralized loan services and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. The plaintiff agreed to the request.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the defendant’s request and ordered the limited redaction in the publicly available transcript.

The detailed version

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

Case
Haley v. Teachers Investment and Annuity Association · No. 1:17-cv-00855
Judge
James Oetken
Date
July 2, 2020

Background

The defendant, identified in the opinion as Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), asked the court to redact one specific dollar amount from the transcript of a June 12, 2020 telephone conference. The amount appeared on page 9, lines 2–3, and concerned “spread compensation” connected to TIAA’s collateral loan service.

The request concerned a discovery-related figure that plaintiff’s counsel had calculated using confidential information produced by TIAA. The transcript included discussion of the interest paid by borrowing participants, the amount credited on loan collateral, and the difference between those amounts.

Request and reasoning

TIAA argued that the dollar figure was confidential business information and that disclosure to the public and competitors could cause competitive harm. It relied on the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the exception allowing confidentiality when protecting higher values, including protection from competitive injury. TIAA also argued that the requested redaction was narrowly tailored and that the figure was not directly relevant to the discovery disputes addressed at the hearing. The plaintiff consented to the requested relief.

Ruling

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the defendant’s request to redact the dollar figure from the publicly available version of the June 12 transcript. The order did not address the underlying claims concerning the collateralized loan program or the alleged prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.