Hanks v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company of New York

Background

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company and non-party The Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, together called the “Movants,” filed two motions to seal. One concerned documents submitted with the parties’ motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide a case without a trial. The other concerned documents submitted with motions in limine, which ask the court to decide evidentiary issues before trial. Helen Hanks did not oppose the motions.

The Movants sought redactions or sealing for documents that had previously been filed publicly in redacted form or temporarily under seal. They argued that the information included confidential and proprietary business information, such as actuarial assumptions, cost-of-insurance rates, and communications with state insurance regulators. They also sought redactions for personal medical information concerning one of Voya’s experts.

Legal standard

The court applied the public-access standards discussed in its earlier order. Documents filed with summary-judgment motions receive a strong presumption of public access. Documents filed with motions in limine generally receive a somewhat lower presumption. Even so, sealing is allowed only when specific findings show that it is necessary to protect a higher-value interest and the sealing is narrowly tailored. Redacting sensitive portions is preferred over sealing an entire document.

Rulings on summary-judgment materials

The court found that the proposed redactions to Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 to the Villacastin Declaration narrowly protected Voya’s sensitive business information. It also found complete sealing appropriate for Exhibits 20, 22, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. The court therefore granted Voya’s motion to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36.

The Movants no longer requested sealing for Exhibits 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, and 25 to the Villacastin Declaration. The court took no further action on those documents because the requests had been withdrawn, and unredacted versions were publicly available.

Rulings on motion-in-limine materials

The court granted the motion to seal Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22, 26, 30, 39, and 41 to the Shulman Declaration, which contained the same redactions previously approved for summary-judgment materials.

The court also approved the proposed redactions to Exhibits 9, 10, 12, 27, 31, and 37 and the complete sealing of Exhibits 33, 34, and 35 because they protected sensitive business information. It approved redactions to Exhibits 28 and 29 because they protected the personal medical information of one of Voya’s experts. Finally, it approved limited redactions to Exhibits 42 through 47 because those materials quoted from redacted documents or contained the expert’s medical information.

The court therefore granted the Movants’ motion to seal Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 to the Shulman Declaration.

The Movants withdrew their requests to seal Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 32, 36, 38, and 40 to the Shulman Declaration. The court took no further action on those documents, and unredacted versions were publicly available.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the Movants’ motions to seal were GRANTED except as to the documents identified in the two sections concerning withdrawn requests. The Clerk was directed to terminate motions 220 and 247.