Krohnengold v. New York Life Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-01778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Krohnengold v. New York Life Insurance Company, Judge Furman temporarily granted LCG Associates’ request to seal certain materials while considering the underlying motion.
Third-party LCG Associates, Inc., whose confidential business information is temporarily protected from public disclosure, as well as the parties and the public’s access to the identified court filings.
What happened
In Krohnengold v. New York Life Insurance Company, third-party LCG Associates asked the court to keep certain exhibits and redactions from public view. The materials were submitted with the plaintiffs’ reply supporting class certification.
LCG said the materials contained its proposed plans, strategies, internal studies, analyses, and advice to a client. It argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm and that the materials were only indirectly relevant to the class-certification dispute. LCG withdrew its requests concerning three other exhibits and took no position on the merits of the case.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when it ruled on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the referenced docket entry.
The detailed version
- Krohnengold v. New York Life Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-01778
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
Third-party LCG Associates, Inc. asked the court to maintain under seal information in three exhibits attached to the plaintiffs’ reply supporting their motion for class certification: portions of Exhibits 3, 13, and 19. LCG also asked the court to keep related redactions. LCG withdrew its requests to seal Exhibits 9, 12, and 21.
LCG argued that the remaining materials contained confidential and proprietary business information protected by the parties’ confidentiality order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). According to LCG, the materials included a detailed draft memorandum describing its analytical methods, internal discussions about advice to a client, and testimony by an LCG representative about that advice. LCG stated that disclosure could allow competitors to cause it competitive harm and that the information had not previously been made public.
Access and confidentiality arguments
LCG argued that the public’s presumptive right to access court documents was weak because the redacted information did not bear on the determinative issue in the class-certification dispute. It characterized the materials as redundant and indirect evidence, noting that the plaintiffs cited other, more direct evidence. LCG also argued that its privacy and commercial interests outweighed the limited public-access interest. LCG expressly took no position on the merits of the parties’ arguments.
Ruling
The court stated: “The motion to seal is granted temporarily.” The court will assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 157. The order therefore did not make a final determination about continued sealing or redaction.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.