Berkley Custom Insurance Managers v. York Risk Services Group, Inc.

Background

Berkley moved to seal York’s reply letter supporting York’s motion to compel. Berkley said the reply, particularly footnote one, cited, quoted, and described legal advice that Berkley had received from coverage counsel. Berkley said related documents had previously been filed publicly, then sealed after Berkley requested sealing because they were protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product protection and had been marked confidential.

Berkley argued that protecting attorney-client communications and work product supplied a sufficient reason to overcome the usual presumption that federal court records should be publicly accessible. Berkley also asserted that continued public access could prejudice its coverage positions in underlying personal-injury actions that were still being challenged by NYCHA. It alternatively asked the court to require York to re-file the reply with footnote one redacted. Berkley said York would not be prejudiced because York had received the information under a protective order and could still use it in the litigation.

Ruling

The court ordered the clerk to seal Docket No. 48 so it would be viewable only by the court and the parties. The court also ordered York to re-file the letter with redactions as described in Berkley’s request. The opinion text provided is a letter motion and the court’s endorsement; it does not include a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning.

Disposition

The court granted the requested sealing relief by ordering the reply sealed and directing York to re-file it with redactions. The court’s endorsement does not state that the reply or the underlying motion to compel was dismissed or decided on the merits.