Colony Insurance Company v. Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-06041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Colony Insurance v. Riverside Center, Judge Hellerstein granted a request to seal specified documents, limiting access to the parties and court.
Colony Insurance Company, Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, the parties’ counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed documents.
What happened
In Colony Insurance Company v. Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Colony asked to file certain exhibits under seal, including its response to the defendant’s statement of material facts and deposition testimony from a defendant’s witness.
Colony said the materials contained sensitive information related to a separate action and included information protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product protections. The opinion does not describe any ruling on the parties’ summary-judgment arguments.
Judge Hellerstein granted the sealing request. The documents at ECF No. 52 will remain under seal and available only to the parties and the court, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 25, 26, 42, and 51.
The detailed version
- Colony Insurance Company v. Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06041
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 27, 2024
What the request concerned
Colony Insurance Company asked for permission to file certain exhibits under seal. The requested materials included Colony’s response to the defendant’s statement of material facts and deposition testimony of a defendant’s witness. Colony’s filing stated that the materials contained sensitive information concerning a related action, Sanchez v. Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, and invoked attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.
The court’s ruling
The court granted the request at ECF No. 51. It ordered that the documents filed at ECF No. 52 remain under seal and be viewable only by the parties and the court. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 25, 26, 42, and 51.
What the ruling means
This was a sealing order concerning public access to court filings. The opinion does not decide the underlying insurance dispute or state the outcome of Colony’s motion for summary judgment. It explains that the request was granted for the reasons specified by the parties and in prior sealing rulings in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.