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 filings.
The parties seeking to seal or redact their filings, the public’s access to court documents, and the clerk’s handling of documents already under seal.
What happened
In Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, the parties asked the court to seal or redact documents filed in connection with their summary-judgment motions.
The parties said the documents were confidential or highly confidential. The court explained that the public generally has a right to inspect court documents, although that right can be outweighed by competing interests such as protecting sensitive business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the sealing requests without prejudice to renewal. The parties could submit new requests by August 4, 2023, with explanations meeting applicable Second Circuit standards. The clerk was directed to close the 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
- July 28, 2023
What the parties requested
The parties asked for permission to file their respective opposition papers to summary-judgment motions, responses to statements of material facts, and accompanying exhibits under seal or in redacted form. They relied on confidentiality or highly confidential designations for those materials.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a strong common-law presumption of public access. That right is not absolute, however, and the court must balance public access against competing interests, including the protection of competitively sensitive information. A party’s confidentiality designation by itself does not decide whether sealing is appropriate.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the parties’ requests without prejudice to renewal. The parties were permitted to refile their requests by August 4, 2023, with explanations sufficient under Second Circuit case law. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 262 and 269. The clerk was also directed to keep all documents already under seal sealed while the parties considered possibly filing renewed sealing requests.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.