Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Volino v. Progressive, Judge Schofield granted a motion to keep specified third-party business records and testimony sealed.
Mitchell International and J.D. Power received protection for specified confidential business information and a witness’s home address; public access to the identified materials remains restricted.
What happened
In Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, third-party subpoena respondents Mitchell International and J.D. Power asked the court to keep certain exhibits and deposition testimony sealed. They said the materials contained proprietary business information, confidential pricing and software methodology, and a witness’s home address.
The respondents argued that public disclosure could give competitors valuable information and cause competitive harm. They also said the documents were covered by a protective order and that the parties either did not oppose or took no position on sealing. The court applied a three-part test concerning whether the materials were judicial documents, the strength of public access, and competing interests favoring secrecy.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the request. The court maintained the seal on Exhibits 8, 11, and 12 to the Bates Declaration and the redacted portions of Exhibit A to the Barnett Declaration, and directed the clerk to close the related motions.
The detailed version
- Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-06243
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 6, 2023
Background
Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power were third-party subpoena respondents, not named parties in the litigation. They had produced documents, data, and deposition testimony under a stipulated protective order that designated certain information as confidential or highly confidential. They filed a corrected letter motion seeking to maintain the seal on Exhibits 8, 11, and 12 to the Bates Declaration and on redacted portions of Exhibit A to the Barnett Declaration. The earlier motion had listed incorrect docket numbers; the corrected motion stated that no other changes were made.
The requested sealed material fell into three categories: Mitchell information about pricing and its WorkCenter Total Loss application; portions of an expert report describing the methodology used to determine the relevant calculation and including graphs and calculations derived from J.D. Power’s proprietary data; and selected deposition testimony concerning the methodology, along with a Mitchell witness’s home address. The defendants did not oppose the request, while the plaintiffs took no position.
Legal Standard
The court applied the three-part sealing inquiry used in the Second Circuit. First, it considered whether the material was a judicial document subject to a presumptive right of public access. Second, it considered the weight of that presumption based on the material’s role in the court’s work. Third, it balanced public access against competing interests, including protection from competitive harm and privacy interests.
Court’s Ruling
The court granted the motion. It found that the third-party respondents’ interest in protecting proprietary business materials from disclosure outweighed any public-access interest in those materials. It also found that the privacy interest in keeping the witness’s home address confidential outweighed the public-access interest in that information.
The clerk was directed to maintain the seal on Exhibit 8 at Dkt. No. 174-7, Exhibit 11 at Dkt. No. 174-10, Exhibit 12 at Dkt. No. 174-11, and the redacted portions of Exhibit A to the Barnett Declaration at Dkt. No. 191-1. The clerk was also directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 211 and 215.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.