Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

Background

Travelers asked the court to keep Exhibits 3 through 13 attached to Jennifer Rand’s June 13, 2023 response letter under seal and to allow related redactions to that letter. The materials were filed in connection with Travelers’ request for permission to seek an order quashing a subpoena that Rand issued to Mandiant Inc. Rand took no position on Travelers’ request.

Judge Vincent Briccetti had previously granted Rand’s request to seal the letter and exhibits but required a further application proposing redactions that complied with the Second Circuit’s public-access standards. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik for general pretrial matters.

Legal standard

The common law and the First Amendment generally create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. A judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. To overcome that presumption, the court must make specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to protect those interests. Because these materials concerned a discovery dispute, the presumption of public access was lower than it would have been for materials submitted at trial or with a motion seeking final judgment.

Courts may seal or redact commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business and financial interests, but the sealing must be specifically justified and narrowly tailored.

Ruling on Exhibits 3–5 and 7–10

The court granted Travelers’ request to keep Exhibits 3–5 and 7–10 under seal in their entirety. Exhibit 3 was a confidential statement of work between Mandiant and Travelers’ counsel, subject to a confidentiality agreement. Exhibits 4 and 5 contained communications between Travelers and regulatory bodies about the fraudulent use of the ForAgents portal and included sensitive information about Travelers’ cybersecurity team. Exhibit 7 was a confidential work-assignment agreement concerning an external penetration test of Travelers’ systems. Exhibits 8 and 10 were confidential external cybersecurity assessments, and Exhibit 9 was an internal presentation to Travelers’ board about cybersecurity risk, disaster recovery, and insurance.

The court found that public release of these materials would threaten cybersecurity efforts or reveal confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information.

Ruling on Exhibits 6 and 11–13

The court denied Travelers’ request to seal Exhibits 6 and 11–13, subject to a renewed motion proposing narrower redactions. Although Travelers described Exhibit 6 as confidential communications with the New York State Department of Financial Services, the court found that most of the exhibit concerned publicly available industry guidance and publicly available facts about the data breach.

Travelers described Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 as confidential breach-notification letters containing business information about the incident and Travelers’ insurance policies. The court found that portions of those exhibits described publicly available facts about the breach. It stated that confidential business information about Travelers’ insurance policies could be redacted, but the proposed sealing request was not sufficiently narrow.

Ruling on the June 13 letter and filing instructions

The court denied Travelers’ proposed redactions to Rand’s June 13 letter. It directed Travelers to file revised proposed redactions consistent with the ruling on the exhibits and to submit a renewed motion concerning Exhibits 6 and 11–13 by August 4, 2023.

The Clerk of Court was directed to keep Exhibits 3–5 and 7–10, including the identified duplicate filings, under seal and accessible only to selected parties. The Clerk was also directed to keep the letter and Exhibits 6 and 11–13, along with identified duplicate filings, under seal and accessible only to selected parties pending the renewed motion. The court terminated Travelers’ sealing motion at ECF No. 62.