In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:16-cv-00740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company COI Litigation, Judge Furman adopted continued sealing and redaction proposals and ordered docket updates.
The parties in the related litigation, the LSH Plaintiffs, non-party Willis Towers Watson, and the Clerk of Court were affected by the sealing, redaction, filing, and docket-access directives.
What happened
In In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company COI Litigation, the parties sought continued sealing and redaction of filings related to summary-judgment motions, expert-testimony motions, and AXA’s reconsideration motion. Willis Towers Watson also sought to intervene to request sealing of certain filings.
The court found that the filings were judicial documents, meaning documents submitted for the court’s consideration, and therefore carried a strong presumption of public access. It nevertheless adopted the proposed redactions and sealing because they were narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting restricted access.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to make the docket consistent with that decision within one week, including filing documents publicly with redactions or identifying documents for access changes. He also warned the LSH Plaintiffs that future sealing motions that do not comply with his individual rules may be summarily denied, and directed the Clerk to terminate specified docket entries.
The detailed version
- In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company · No. 1:16-cv-00740
- Jesse Furman
- July 29, 2022
Background
The parties moved for continued sealing and redaction of documents filed in connection with their cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions to exclude certain expert testimony. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company also moved for reconsideration of part of the court’s summary-judgment decision, and filings connected with that motion were included in some of the sealing requests. Non-party Willis Towers Watson moved to intervene so it could seek an order sealing certain documents filed with the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the filings were “judicial documents”—documents submitted to the court for consideration in deciding a matter. As a result, they were subject to a strong presumption of public access under the common law and the First Amendment. The court nevertheless concluded, substantially for the reasons given by the parties and Willis Towers Watson, that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to the reasons justifying sealing. The court adopted the proposals for continued redaction and sealing.
The court also reminded the parties to follow Individual Rule 7.A. Information that may be redacted without court approval, such as a Social Security number or birth date, must be redacted before filing and should not be included in a future motion for sealing. The court warned the LSH Plaintiffs that their sealing and redaction motion did not comply with Individual Rule 7.C(ii)-(i1), and stated that a future motion failing to comply with the court’s individual rules may be summarily denied.
Disposition and directives
The court directed the parties to ensure, within one week of July 29, 2022, that the docket reflected the adopted sealing and redaction proposals. If a document needed to be unsealed or filed publicly with redactions, the relevant party or parties had to file it or submit a letter identifying the documents for the court to direct the Clerk to change their access level. The Clerk was directed to terminate docket entries 602, 607, 612, 615, 620, and 621 in No. 16-CV-740 and entries 274 and 275 in No. 18-CV-2111.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.