Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2022

The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Polmateer

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-01631
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Guardian Life v. Polmateer: Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered document production, evidence preservation, and sealing of specified materials.

Who this affects

The order directly affected defendants Lloyd Polmateer and Sean Joiner, who were required to produce documents and preserve evidence, and The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, whose motion to seal was granted and which had to report on Request No. 6.

What happened

In The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Polmateer, the court addressed discovery and sealing issues after a telephone conference with the parties. The defendants were Lloyd Polmateer and Sean Joiner.

The court ordered the defendants to produce responsive Guardian client lists, spreadsheets, client data, and other documents by specified dates. It also ordered preservation of evidence, including computers, cell phones, and email accounts, and required the plaintiff to state whether it would pursue one additional document request.

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to seal and ordered the defendants to preserve evidence until further order. Stewart D. Aaron, a United States Magistrate Judge, did not decide the underlying merits of the dispute in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Polmateer · No. 1:22-cv-01631
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Mar. 1, 2022

What the order addressed

After a telephone conference with the parties, the court issued discovery, evidence-preservation, and sealing directives. The caption identifies Lloyd Polmateer and Sean Joiner as defendants.

Discovery orders

The court ordered the defendants to produce, by March 8, 2022, any Guardian client lists, client spreadsheets, and client data in their possession, custody, or control that responded to the plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 5, filed at ECF No. 11-1.

By March 11, 2022, the defendants also had to produce any remaining responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control for the period from February 2 through February 28, 2022. The plaintiff had to file a letter by March 11 stating whether it intended to pursue production under Request No. 6 at that time and, if so, proposing a schedule for additional briefing.

Evidence preservation

Until further order, the defendants and persons acting with them—including officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and others in active concert or participation—were ordered to preserve all evidence relating to the matter, including computers, cell phones, and email accounts.

Sealing ruling

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to seal at ECF No. 6. Applying the test identified in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court found that the proposed redactions and sealing requests were narrowly tailored to protect personal and sensitive business information. The clerk was requested to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8.

Result and significance

This was a procedural order concerning discovery, preservation, and access to court materials. It did not decide the underlying merits of the dispute. The order was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.