Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice requests to seal summary-judgment materials, allowing refiling with adequate explanations.
The parties’ requests to seal summary-judgment materials were denied without prejudice, while documents already under seal remained sealed pending possible renewed requests; the ruling also implicated the public’s access to judicial documents.
What happened
In Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, the parties asked to file their summary-judgment motions, statements of facts, and related exhibits under seal because they had labeled the materials confidential or highly confidential.
The court explained that the public generally has a right to access court documents, although that right can be outweighed by competing concerns, such as protecting competitively sensitive information. The parties’ confidentiality labels alone did not decide whether sealing was appropriate.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the sealing requests without prejudice to renewal. The parties may file new requests by July 14, 2023, with explanations sufficient under Second Circuit law. The clerk was directed to close the existing motions while keeping documents already under seal sealed pending possible renewed requests.
The detailed version
- Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-06243
- Lorna Schofield
- June 30, 2023
Background
The parties requested permission to file under seal their respective motions for summary judgment, Rule 56.1 statements of material fact, and accompanying exhibits. They relied on designations that the materials were confidential or highly confidential.
Legal Standard
The court stated that the public has a common-law right to access judicial documents. That right is not absolute, however, and the court must balance the presumption of public access against competing considerations, including the protection of competitively sensitive information. A party’s confidentiality designation does not by itself overcome the public-access right.
Ruling
The court denied the parties’ requests without prejudice to renewal. It permitted the parties to refile their requests by July 14, 2023, with explanations sufficient under Second Circuit case law. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 241 and 249 and to maintain all documents already under seal while the parties considered whether to file renewed requests.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.