In re Omnicom Group. Inc. ERISA Litigation
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-04141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Omnicom ERISA Litigation: a defense letter asked Judge McMahon to permanently seal five exhibits containing plaintiffs’ financial information.
The request concerned the privacy of the named plaintiffs—Surfina Adams, Daniel S. Dise, Carol A. Maisonette, Michael Mensack, and Shane Tepper—and sought to restrict public access to five exhibits filed by the defendants.
What happened
In In re Omnicom Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation, defendants asked the court to seal five exhibits containing retirement-plan transaction statements for the named plaintiffs.
The letter said the statements contained sensitive personal and financial information, even after certain identifying details were redacted. Defendants argued that the information was not relevant to the case’s merits and that privacy concerns outweighed the public’s limited interest in seeing it; plaintiffs did not object.
The text is a request addressed to Judge Colleen McMahon, not a court ruling. It does not state that Judge McMahon granted or denied the sealing request.
The detailed version
- In re Omnicom Group. Inc. ERISA Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-04141
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
The provided text is a letter from defense counsel to Judge Colleen McMahon concerning the defendants’ motion to dismiss in In re Omnicom Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation. The defendants identified themselves as Omnicom Group, Inc., the Board of Directors of Omnicom Group, Inc., and the Administrative Committee of the Omnicom Group Retirement Savings Plan.
Sealing Request
Defendants asked the court to permanently seal Exhibits 10 through 14 to the declaration of Jeff G. Hammel. The exhibits were described as transaction-history statements from the Omnicom Group Retirement Savings Plan covering May 29, 2014, through August 10, 2020, for Surfina Adams, Daniel S. Dise, Carol A. Maisonette, Michael Mensack, and Shane Tepper.
The letter stated that the defendants had redacted Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers, and home addresses. Defendants nevertheless argued that the statements still contained the named plaintiffs’ individual financial information. They asserted that this information was not relevant to the merits of the litigation and that the risk of harm from disclosure outweighed the limited public interest in access. The letter also stated that plaintiffs did not object to the request.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain an order or other ruling by Judge Colleen McMahon. It records defendants’ request for permanent sealing but does not state that the request was granted, denied, or otherwise decided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.