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, Magistrate Judge Reznik granted proposed redactions and kept two filings under seal.
The parties and the public’s access to the court filings were affected. Travelers’ confidential business information, including information about its employees, teams, data-security personnel, and third-party suppliers, remained protected, while redacted versions became public.
What happened
Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company concerned proposed redactions to two court filings, ECF Nos. 78 and 78-1. The plaintiff did not oppose the redactions but otherwise took no position.
The court explained that court records generally are presumed open to the public, although that presumption is lower for filings related to discovery disputes. The proposed redactions covered information already sealed or redacted under earlier orders, confidential information about Travelers’ employees, teams, data-security personnel, and third-party suppliers, and information that could be used for improper purposes.
Magistrate Judge Reznik granted the proposed redactions. The clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 78 and 78-1 under seal and accessible only to selected parties, make the corresponding redacted versions public, and close ECF No. 96.
The detailed version
- Rand v. The Travelers Indemnity Company · No. 7:21-cv-10744
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
The court had previously allowed Plaintiff Jennifer Rand to keep ECF Nos. 78 and 78-1 temporarily under seal. It later directed the parties to submit proposed redactions for those filings. The court received the parties’ joint submission. Rand did not oppose the proposed redactions but otherwise took no position.
Legal standard
The court stated that the common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public. 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 presumption is generally lower for materials filed in connection with discovery disputes than for materials introduced at trial or filed with dispositive motions. Courts in the district routinely allow sealing or redaction of commercially sensitive and financial information. The court also may restrict access when court files could be used for improper purposes.
Court’s analysis
The proposed redactions to ECF No. 78 were limited to confidential information that was already under seal or had already been redacted under the court’s earlier orders. The proposed redactions to ECF No. 78-1 concerned confidential business information about Travelers’ employees and teams, including personnel responsible for data security, as well as Travelers’ third-party suppliers. The court also found that public access to this information could lead to its use for improper purposes.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik granted the proposed redactions. The clerk was directed to maintain ECF Nos. 78 and 78-1 under seal and make them accessible only to selected parties. The clerk was also directed to change the viewing level to public for the corresponding redacted versions, ECF Nos. 97-1 and 97-2, and to close out ECF No. 96. The order did not decide the underlying dispute between Rand and The Travelers Indemnity Company.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.