LSH CO v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-02111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In LSH CO v. AXA Equitable, Judge Furman granted EFG Bank’s request to continue sealing and redacting sensitive litigation materials.
EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, and the parties and third parties seeking access to the specified litigation materials.
What happened
In LSH CO v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch asked the court to keep certain materials filed in connection with motions in limine under seal or partially redacted.
The materials included portions of expert reports and deposition transcripts, a risk memorandum, and portions of AXA’s opposition. EFG said the materials contained confidential contracts, internal analyses, investment strategies, valuation methods, and other business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Judge Jesse M. Furman found, after reviewing a sample, that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that the interests supporting them outweighed the usual 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
- LSH CO v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company · No. 1:18-cv-02111
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
The filing concerned related litigation against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch requested continued sealing and redaction of materials submitted in connection with motion-in-limine briefing. The requested materials included portions of the July 15, 2019 reports of Timothy C. Pfeifer and Glenn Hubbard; excerpts from Tobias Schmelz’s depositions as EFG’s designated witness and individual witness; Exhibit 35 to a declaration supporting AXA’s opposition; and portions of AXA’s opposition to the motions in limine.
Arguments for Continued Sealing
EFG argued that the materials contained confidential and proprietary business information. The requested redactions concerned discussion of a privately negotiated Securities Account Control Agreement; a confidential risk memorandum and its appendices; EFG’s internal valuation models, investment strategies, risk-management information, and business practices; an internal portfolio evaluation report; and an internal business email chain concerning management and valuation of life-insurance portfolios. EFG argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm, including by revealing information about contracts, investment methods, valuation methods, and policies unrelated to the litigation. EFG also joined AXA’s proposed redactions to portions of the Pfeifer and Hubbard reports and to AXA’s opposition.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that the presumption of public access must be balanced against sufficient countervailing interests, including privacy and the protection of sensitive proprietary information. After reviewing a sample of the materials, the court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect interests that outweighed public access. The court therefore granted the application for continued sealing and redaction, subject to reconsideration if a party or third party later moves 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.