1:23-cv-01613
S.D.N.Y.Oct 27, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Florence Bella sued Wilton Reassurance Life of New York for breach of contract, alleging overcharging under a life-insurance policy.
- Wilton filed a motion to dismiss and attached as an exhibit an Actuarial Memorandum (filed originally with NY Insurance Dept.), and moved to file that exhibit under seal.
- Bella filed an opposition partially under seal at Wilton’s request and stated she took no position on sealing.
- The court considered whether the Actuarial Memorandum is a "judicial document" subject to the strong presumption of public access at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
- The court concluded the Memorandum is not a judicial document for the motion to dismiss (it was not attached to or referenced in the complaint and will not be considered on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion) and therefore allowed it to remain sealed for now.
- The court warned that if the case survives to summary judgment and the Memorandum is used on a dispositive motion, the presumption of public access will be stronger and sealing likely will not be allowed; the court also criticized the breadth and staleness of Wilton’s redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Actuarial Memorandum is a "judicial document" subject to public-access presumptions | Memorandum not endorsed on or attached to the Policy, not referenced in the Complaint, and Plaintiff had no prior possession or knowledge — so it will not be considered on the motion | Memorandum is identified/referenced in the Policy as part of its contractual terms and thus may be considered | Memorandum is not a judicial document at the 12(b)(6) stage; sealing is permitted now |
| Whether sealing/redactions are appropriate and narrowly tailored | Plaintiff took no position; argued Memorandum not used by court | Wilton: redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information and proprietary strategies | Court granted sealing now but questioned narrow tailoring (11 of 12 pages redacted) and noted staleness; likely not sealed if used on a dispositive motion later |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (defines "judicial document" and frames public-access test)
- United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (public-access balancing framework)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (Amodeo II) (describes role-based strength of access presumption)
- Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (distinguishes First Amendment and common-law presumptions)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (presumption weakest for materials not used by the court)
- Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2019) (filing on the docket alone does not make a document a judicial document)
- Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (First Amendment right of access principles)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (common-law right of access to judicial documents)
- Haider v. Geller & Co. LLC, 457 F. Supp. 3d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (applies access presumptions in S.D.N.Y.)