Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10744
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Judge Reznik granted Travelers’ request to keep specified discovery materials sealed.
Travelers’ unredacted motion to quash and Exhibits D, E, and F will remain sealed and accessible only to selected parties; the redacted motion remains publicly available.
What happened
In Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Travelers asked the court to keep its motion to quash and three supporting exhibits under seal. The materials concerned confidential commercial information and business agreements.
The court found that the documents contained confidential, proprietary, or competitively sensitive business information. It also applied a lower public-access presumption because the documents were filed in connection with a discovery dispute.
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik granted Travelers’ request. The unredacted motion and Exhibits D, E, and F will remain sealed and accessible only to selected parties, while the redacted motion remains publicly available.
The detailed version
- Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company · No. 7:21-cv-10744
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 26, 2023
Background
Travelers asked the court to keep its motion to quash and Exhibits D, E, and F under seal. A motion to quash asks the court to block or limit a subpoena or similar discovery demand. Travelers said the materials contained confidential commercial information, business strategy, and information covered by contractual confidentiality agreements.
Exhibit D was described as a November 2021 statement of work between Mandiant, a non-party, and Alston & Bird, Travelers’ counsel. Exhibit E was described as a September 2011 master services engagement between Mandiant and Alston & Bird. Exhibit F was described as a June 2015 technology professional services agreement between Travelers and Mandiant.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access under the common law and the First Amendment. To overcome that presumption, a court must make specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect important interests and is narrowly tailored to those interests.
The court also explained that the public-access presumption is generally lower for materials filed in connection with discovery disputes than for materials introduced at trial or filed with dispositive motions. Because the motion to quash and exhibits concerned a discovery dispute, the court concluded that the reasons supporting sealing did not need to be as compelling as they would for trial or dispositive-motion materials. The court further noted that courts in the district routinely allow sealing or redaction of commercially sensitive and financial information.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik granted Travelers’ request to seal. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to maintain ECF Nos. 74, 74-1, 74-2, and 74-3 under seal and accessible only to selected parties. These entries were the unredacted motion to quash and Exhibits D, E, and F. The redacted version of the motion, ECF No. 73, remains publicly available. The court also directed the Clerk to close out ECF No. 71.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.