Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc.

Background

The parties filed several letter-motions asking to seal or redact portions of their premotion summary-judgment letters and exhibits. Coventry sought protection for the names of insured individuals whose life-insurance policies were part of the disputed portfolio and for information about its diligence concerning policies and portfolios it considered purchasing. The defendants sought protection for information about negotiations and valuations involving EEA’s portfolio and individual policies, as well as confidential medical information of non-party insureds.

Legal standard

The court explained that the party seeking to seal court-submitted material bears the burden of justification. It applied the three-step test for the common-law right of public access: whether the material is a judicial document, the weight of the presumption of access, and whether competing interests overcome that presumption. Materials submitted in connection with anticipated summary-judgment motions are judicial documents entitled to a strong presumption of public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. The court also considered the need to protect sensitive commercial information and the privacy interests of innocent third parties, but said those interests must be described specifically and concretely.

Reasons for the ruling

The court found that the parties had not specifically applied the required three-step analysis. It further found that the requests were perfunctory, did not adequately describe concrete business interests or likely harm, and sometimes sought to seal entire exhibits even though the parties had quoted portions without redaction. The court also noted that some of the information was several years old, that the information appeared central to the dispute and potentially important to understanding the court’s later resolution of the anticipated summary-judgment motions, and that the amended protective order did not by itself overcome the presumption of public access.

The court agreed that identifying information for non-party insureds—including their names and policy numbers—should be redacted because of privacy concerns and because that information appeared tangential to the dispute. But it found the proposed redactions overbroad: once identifying information was removed, related financial information did not identify a specific non-party or present sufficient privacy concerns to require redaction.

Disposition

The court denied in part and granted in part the parties’ letter-motions to seal, without prejudice to renewal. If the parties wished to renew, they were required to file a joint letter-motion by April 20, 2023, limited to eight pages, with sufficient explanation and narrower redactions. If no renewed motion was filed, they were required to publicly file unredacted versions of their respective premotion papers by April 27, 2023, except for redactions of the non-party insureds’ personal identifying information as specified by the court. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 431, 436, 438, 444, 447, and 448, while ECF Nos. 432, 437, 439, 440, and 445 were to remain sealed and visible to the court and parties.