Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2022

Kwasnik v. Oxford Health Insurance, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-04767
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Kwasnik v. Oxford Health Insurance, Judge Caproni denied without prejudice the request to seal defendants’ opposition materials.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. and IPRO, in connection with exhibits filed in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

What happened

In Kwasnik v. Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., the plaintiff asked the court to seal exhibits filed by defendants Oxford and IPRO in opposition to the plaintiff’s request to send the case back to another court. The plaintiff said the exhibits disclosed sensitive medical information that was unnecessary to deciding the request.

The court denied the sealing request without prejudice because the plaintiff did not identify which information or exhibits required sealing. The court directed the parties to discuss confidentiality and sealing and set deadlines for any renewed sealing motion and opposition.

Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on August 8, 2022. She instructed the parties to follow the sealing standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. and the court’s individual practices.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kwasnik v. Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04767
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 8, 2022

Background

The plaintiff filed a letter-motion asking the court to seal exhibits submitted by both defendants in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to remand. The plaintiff asserted that defendant IPRO had published sensitive medical information and that Oxford’s exhibits also contained sensitive information. The plaintiff argued that the information was unnecessary because only the external review holding was needed.

Court’s ruling

The court denied the application without prejudice. It found that the plaintiff’s letter-motion did not identify which information or exhibits in the defendants’ opposition brief required sealing.

Required next steps

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about confidentiality and sealing while considering the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Any motion to seal had to be filed by August 11, 2022, and any opposition had to be filed by August 15, 2022. The court directed that sealing requests be handled under Rule 5 of its Individual Practices.

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.