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 John Hancock’s motion to re-seal commercially sensitive discovery materials and directed docket changes.
John Hancock and the public’s access to the specified discovery materials were directly affected. The court’s docket instructions also affected the parties’ publicly filed materials.
What happened
In Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York, John Hancock asked the court to re-seal parts of one exhibit and all of two other exhibits attached to a discovery dispute letter. It also asked the court to remove from the docket an earlier court entry containing unredacted versions of those materials.
The court said discovery materials receive only a limited presumption of public access. It found that presumption was outweighed by John Hancock’s interest in protecting confidential, commercially sensitive information about the actuarial assumptions used to price and value its business. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly limited and that fully redacting two exhibits would not be practical.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted John Hancock’s motion. He directed the Clerk to re-seal the specified materials and make the related changes to the docket, including striking the earlier court entry containing the unsealed materials.
The detailed version
- Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04994
- Alvin Hellerstein
- May 28, 2021
Background
The order concerned a sealed joint discovery-dispute letter dated May 24, 2021, and exhibits attached to that letter. The letter had been filed in redacted form, while certain exhibits had been filed entirely under seal. The plaintiffs had moved to keep some materials sealed, but the court denied that motion on May 26, 2021.
John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York and John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), together referred to in the opinion as John Hancock, then moved to re-seal portions of Exhibit 1 and all of Exhibits 3 and 4. John Hancock also asked the court to remove from the docket an earlier court entry that contained unredacted and unsealed versions of the materials.
Court’s analysis
Because the materials were filed in connection with a discovery motion, the court applied a weak presumption that they should be available to the public. The court found that this presumption was outweighed by John Hancock’s interest in protecting confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary information whose disclosure could cause significant competitive harm.
The court specifically described the information as concerning the actuarial assumptions used in pricing and valuing John Hancock’s business. It also found that John Hancock’s proposed redactions to Exhibit 1 were limited to information meeting the criteria for sealing. Exhibits 3 and 4 consisted entirely of non-public, commercially sensitive, and proprietary information, so the court found that redacting those exhibits would not be practical.
Ruling
The court granted John Hancock’s motion to re-seal the identified materials. It directed the Clerk to re-seal the specified docket materials and to strike the earlier court entry containing the unsealed versions. The order also directed related changes to the docket concerning the court’s earlier memorandum endorsement. The opinion’s final docket instruction contains formatting or transcription problems, but its clear ruling was to re-seal the materials and remove or strike the unsealed docket entry.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.