Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee v…
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee v. Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-07606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee v. Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, Judge Failla granted permission to seal a confidential exhibit.
The plaintiff and the other parties were affected because the specified exhibit could be viewed only by the parties and the court; the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
What happened
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee asked to file one exhibit under seal in its submission opposing a pre-conference matter. The exhibit had been designated confidential under the parties’ protective order.
The committee said the exhibit contained sensitive, nonpublic information about its organization and operation. It also argued that public access concerns were less substantial because the exhibit related to a discovery dispute rather than a motion that would decide the case.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She permitted the exhibit to be filed under seal and limited access to the parties and the court; the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 137.
The detailed version
- Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee v… · No. 1:20-cv-07606
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 4, 2022
Background
The plaintiff, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association National Employee Benefits Committee, requested permission to file Exhibit 1 under seal. The exhibit was a document produced by the plaintiff and marked “Confidential.” The plaintiff said it contained sensitive, nonpublic information about its organization and operation.
The request relied on the parties’ stipulated second amended protective order, which required protected discovery material submitted to the court to be filed in redacted form or under seal to the extent permitted by the court’s rules and practices. The plaintiff also argued that the presumption favoring public access was weaker because the exhibit concerned a request for further discovery rather than a motion that would resolve the case.
Ruling
Judge Failla granted the application. The specified exhibit was permitted to be filed under seal and made viewable only to the parties and the court. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 137. The order addressed the sealing request and did not decide the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.