EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:17-cv-04767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In EFG Bank AG v. AXA Equitable, Judge Furman granted EFG’s request to keep specified litigation materials sealed or redacted.
EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, and members of the public seeking access to the specified litigation materials.
What happened
In EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, EFG asked the court to continue sealing or redacting parts of expert reports, deposition transcripts, an exhibit, and AXA’s opposition materials related to motions in limine.
EFG argued that the materials contained confidential contract terms, internal business strategies, investment and valuation methods, risk-management information, and other proprietary information. EFG said public disclosure could cause competitive harm, including by revealing information about life-insurance portfolios and investments not involved in the case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman found, after reviewing a sample of the documents, that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and outweighed the presumption of public access. The court granted the application, subject to reconsideration if a party or third party later moves to unseal particular documents, and directed the Clerk to terminate Docket No. 354.
The detailed version
- EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company · No. 1:17-cv-04767
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch asked the court to continue sealing and redacting documents submitted in connection with motion-in-limine briefing. The requested materials included portions of the July 15, 2019 expert reports of Timothy C. Pfeifer and Glenn Hubbard; portions of deposition transcripts for Tobias Schmelz, EFG’s designated witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6); Exhibit 35 to a declaration supporting the opposition to the motions in limine; and portions of the opposition itself.
EFG joined proposed redactions to the Pfeifer and Hubbard reports and to the opposition. The opinion states that some of the requested materials had previously been sealed or redacted by the court.
Arguments for Continued Sealing
EFG argued that the Hubbard Report discussed a confidential November 7, 2008 Securities Account Control Agreement involving EFG, related entities, and a securities intermediary. EFG said disclosure of the agreement’s privately negotiated terms could harm its position in later contract negotiations.
EFG also described Exhibit 35 as a highly confidential risk memorandum sent to the Board Risk Committee of EFG International AG, with copies to that entity’s Executive Committee. According to EFG, the memorandum and its appendices contained proprietary valuation models, investment strategies, risk-management information, and other sensitive information about EFG’s life-settlement business. EFG requested that the exhibit remain sealed in full.
EFG further sought redactions concerning an internal portfolio evaluation report and an internal business email chain. EFG said those materials contained sensitive analyses of its life-insurance portfolios, investment and management practices, valuation methods, and the expected and actual performance of policies, including policies issued by carriers other than AXA that were not relevant to the litigation.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court stated that the presumption of public access to judicial documents must be balanced against countervailing interests, including privacy interests and the presence of sensitive or proprietary business information. The court also considered the potential competitive harm that could result from public disclosure of confidential business information.
After reviewing a sample of the documents, the court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect interests sufficient to outweigh the presumption of public access. The application was granted, subject to reconsideration if a party or third party files a motion to unseal a particular document or documents. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 354.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.