ONEAMERICA FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC. v. T-SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al

Filing 93

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal and granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/9/2016 (See Entry for details) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ONEAMERICA FINANCIAL
PARTNERS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
T-SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-01534-TWP-DKL

Entry on Plaintiff’s Motion to Maintain Certain Portions of Documents Under Seal [doc. 41]
and TSNA’s Motion to Seal Its Motion to Bifurcate and for Speedy Trial on Count III of Its
Counterclaim [doc. 56]
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Maintain Certain Portions
of Documents Under Seal [doc. 41] and TSNA’s Motion to Seal Its Motion to Bifurcate and for
Speedy Trial on Count III of Its Counterclaim [doc. 56]. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
referred the motions to the undersigned for ruling. Having considered the motions and
supporting materials, the Court decides as follows.
Background
OneAmerica Financial Partners, Inc. brought this action against T-Systems North
America, Inc. (“TSNA”), and T-Systems International GmbH for breach of contract,
fraudulent inducement, fraud, negligence, and promissory estoppel and for breach of
guaranty against T-Systems International. Several years ago, OneAmerica decided to
outsource certain Information Technology (“IT”) services.

It hired technology

consultants to develop a Request for Proposal for Information Technology Infrastructure
Services (“RFP”). OneAmerica and TSNA executed a Master Information Technology
Services Agreement (“MITSA”), pursuant to which TSNA was to provide certain IT
services and equipment to OneAmerica. In this action, OneAmerica alleges that TSNA
failed to provide the high quality IT services as promised under the MITSA. TSNA has
counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, and declaratory relief.
OneAmerica moves to maintain under seal certain portions of the RFP [docs. 6-1
through 6-4], the MITSA [docs. 7-1 through 7-6], T-Systems North America, Inc.’s Answer,
Affirmative Defenses, Reliance on Jury Demand, and Counter-Complaint (“Counter-Complaint”)
[docs. 19 and 19-1], and corresponding portions of OneAmerica Financial Partner, Inc.’s UnRedacted Answer and Affirmative Defenses to T-Systems North America, Inc.’s CounterComplaint and Jury Demand (“Answer to Counter-Complaint”) [doc. 33]. Plaintiff states that
it requests “the Court to maintain under seal only the contents which identify specific
details about [its] software, applications, hardware, vendors, regional locations, and
Information Technology (“IT”) policies and procedures.” [Pl.’s Mot. Maintain Certain
Portions of Docs. Under Seal, doc. 41 at 1.] It argues good cause exists “to maintain these
portions of the documents under seal in order to prevent a potential data breach of
OneAmerica’s IT systems.” [Id.] Given the voluminous filings at issue (in excess of 1,000
pages), OneAmerica did not file copies of the documents with the portions at issue
redacted, but states that it will do so at the Court’s direction.
OneAmerica submits that it is not necessary to disclose specific information about
its IT systems to the public at this stage of the litigation because such information “will
2

not materially assist the public in understanding and monitoring” the case. [Pl.’s Br. Supp.
Mot. Maintain Certain Portions of Docs. Under Seal, doc. 42 at 2.] Those portions of the
documents that are disclosed to the public, it argues, will allow interested parties to know
who is using the courts, to understand the judicial decisions in the case, and to monitor
the Court’s resolution of the issues. [Id. at 5.] If the claims, defenses, or counterclaims
focus on specific software or hardware, OneAmerica argues that the disclosure to the
public of information relating to such software or hardware can be addressed at that time,
but disclosure of details is unnecessary at this early stage of the litigation. [Id. at 2.]
The Court previously denied OneAmerica’s motion to seal the RFP and MITSA in
their entireties and to seal a portion of the Counter-Complaint. However, the Court
allowed OneAmerica to attempt to make a sufficient showing that the documents and
portions thereof should be maintained under seal. [See doc. 31].
OneAmerica filed two affidavits in support of its current motion, the affidavit of
Kevin Weston, Vice President of IT Infrastructure Resource Management at OneAmerica
Financial Partners, Inc. [doc. 42-1] and the affidavit of Yaniv Schiff, Director of Digital
Forensics at Forensicon, Inc. [doc. 42-2]. Weston states that “there is good cause” to
maintain portions of the documents under seal “because they reveal sensitive details
about OneAmerica’s IT infrastructure and IT systems that increase the risk of a data
breach to OneAmerica’s IT systems.” [Doc. 42-1 at 2, ¶ 6.] He continues: “The portions
of information that OneAmerica must maintain under seal are those portions which
identify the specific software and applications that OneAmerica utilizes, specific
hardware that OneAmerica uses, OneAmerica’s vendors, OneAmerica’s regional office
3

locations, and the details of OneAmerica’s IT operations, policies and procedures.” [Id.
¶ 7.] According to Weston, “each reveals vulnerabilities and access points for hackers to
perpetrate a data breach.” [Id. at 3, ¶ 7.] The software and applications are identified by
name in portions of the MITSA, RFP, and Counter-Complaint. [Id. at 3, ¶ 8.] With
knowledge of “specific hardware information such as vendor, product name, serial
number, and model,” Weston states, “a hacker can more easily perpetrate a ‘social
engineering’ hack whereby the hacker is able to trick or manipulate a OneAmerica
employee into performing actions or divulging confidential information to the hacker”
and with knowledge of “precise devices and models” of hardware, a hacker “could
exploit known vulnerabilities in such hardware published in various locations on the socalled ‘Dark Web.’” [Id. ¶ 9.]
Weston asserts that it is important not to disclose the identity of OneAmerica’s IT
vendors and contacts because hackers could exploit vulnerabilities there to gain access to
OneAmerica’s systems. [Id. at 4, ¶ 10.] He states that the list of OneAmerica’s regional
offices should not be revealed, specially “in tandem with the identities of the specific
software, applications, and hardware operating at those locations” because hackers could
use that information to “target regional corporate locations as remote access points to
breach larger corporate networks and enterprise data centers.” [Id. ¶ 11.] Portions of the
regional locations may be perceived to have less security than OneAmercia’s
headquarters and primary enterprise data centers, and thus may be “likely hacker
targets.” [Id.] Furthermore, according to Weston, the details of OneAmerica’s “IP
operations, policies, and procedures” included in portions of the MITSA “disclose
4

OneAmerica’s highly confidential IT information, including specific passwords, system
commands, and recovery processes.” [Id. ¶ 12.] That information would give hackers
insight into OneAmerica’s recovery processes, which could reveal vulnerabilities. [Id.]
OneAmerica argues that disclosure of the above information “could assist a hacker
in exploiting vulnerabilities in [its] system to perpetrate a data breach similar to the recent
Anthem breach subjecting millions of people’s confidential personal information to
exposure.” [Id. at 5, ¶ 13.] The threat of data breaches is increased, Weston submits, “by
the fact that TSNA’s defenses and counter-claims are based in part on allegations that
OneAmerica’s IT systems are outdated and antiquated.” [Id. ¶ 14.] And because it is in
the midst “of a massive transition … to a new IT infrastructure service provider,” Plaintiff
asserts that it is unusually vulnerable to a data breach at this time. [Id. ¶ 15.] Weston
states that a data breach “would affect hundreds of thousands of OneAmerica customers
by putting their confidential personal and financial information at risk,” including their
“personally identifiable information such as social security numbers, account numbers,
and other identification numbers” and “could also expose OneAmerica’s proprietary
business data.” [Id. ¶ 16.]
In addition to being Director of Digital Forensics, Schiff is a Certified Computer
Examiner and a member of the High Technology Crime Investigation Association and
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists. He has served as an
adjunct professor teaching computer forensics at Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois.
[Doc. 42-2 at 1 ¶¶ 2-4.] Schiff has not reviewed the RFP or MITSA, but states that he has
“a general understanding of the topics in those documents” as well as in TSNA’s
5

Counter-Complaint and OneAmerica’s Answer thereto. [Id. at 2, ¶ 6.] He asserts that
certain types of information that OneAmerica seeks to maintain under seal could assist a
hacker to breach OneAmerica’s IT systems or to obtain confidential information through
social engineering. [Id. at 2, ¶ 7.] In particular, “information identifying OneAmerica’s
software, applications, hardware, contractors and IT policies and procedures could assist
hackers in breaching [its] IT systems.” [Id.; see also id. at 2-4, ¶¶ 8-11, 13.] Further,
disclosure of OneAmerica’s regional locations, including non-office regional locations
such as data centers, which are not typically widely known or generally available to the
public, could assist hackers in breaching OneAmerica’s IT systems. [Id. at 4, ¶ 12.]
According to Schiff, OneAmerica “is already a prime target for hackers because it
is a financial institution holding personally identifiable and confidential financial
information for hundreds of thousands of customers” and it is “at an increased risk” for
being targeted for a data breach because: (1) Defendants have alleged that its IT systems
are antiquated and need to be replaced, and (2) it is presently transitioning to a new IT
service provider, “which could make it more difficult to detect and thwart a data breach.”
[Id. at 4-5, ¶ 14.] Finally, Schiff suggests that the risk is increased because information
that a hacker would otherwise have to spend time and effort gathering to assess
OneAmerica’s IT system’s security is “provide[d] in a single source information.” [Id. at
5, ¶ 14.] Both Weston and Schiff state essentially that one cannot know how a hacker
would execute a breach of OneAmerica’s IT systems. [Id. at 2, ¶ 7; doc. 42-1 at 2-3, ¶ 7.]
TSNA filed its motion to seal in order to provide OneAmerica with an opportunity
to meet the good cause standard for maintaining under seal certain information
6

contained in TSNA’s motion to bifurcate and for speedy trial as well as Exhibit 1 attached
to the motion to bifurcate. [See Sealed T-Sys. N. Am., Inc.’s Mot. Bifurcate & for Speedy Trial
on Count III of its Counterclaim, doc. 55; Billing Resolution, Termination, and Asset Purchase
Agreement and Amendment to the Master Information Technology Services Agreement”
(“Billing Agreement”), doc. 55-1.] TSNA disagrees with OneAmerica’s position that
certain agreements and information should be maintained under seal.
Discussion
“Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open
to public view ... unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality.” In re Specht,
622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). The “right of public access … enable[s] interested
members of the public ... to know who [is] using the courts, to understand judicial
decisions, and to monitor the judiciary’s performance of its duties.” Goesel v. Boley Int’l
(H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013) (chambers opinion). Courts recognize limited
matters subject to seal, including trade secrets and other confidential commercial
information. See United States v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd., 788 F.3d 696, 712 (7th Cir. 2015); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). If material may be subject to seal, then the court weighs two
competing interests: “the moving party’s interest in privacy and the public’s interest in
transparency.” Sanford-Brown, 788 F.3d at 712.
A court may shield a document or portion thereof from the public only if there is
good cause to do so. See, e.g., Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1074 (7th Cir. 2009); Citizens
First Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). If “good cause is
shown, parties may seal documents to protect their own interests or interests of third
7

parties.” Ratajczak v. Beazley Sols. Ltd., No. 13-C-045, 2013 WL 6817308, at *1 (E.D. Wis.
Dec. 23, 2013) (citing, ineter alia, Bank of Am., N.A. v. First Mut. Bancorp of Ill., No. 09–5108,
2010 WL 2921845, at *1 (N.D .Ill. July 22, 2010) (“The court will protect financial
information about ‘third party borrowers,’ that is, people and entities who are not parties
to this case.”).
A. OneAmerica’s Motion to Seal
OneAmerica seeks to maintain under seal portions of certain documents that
identify details about its (1) software, applications, or hardware, (2) vendors, (3) regional
locations, and (4) IT policies and procedures. In responding to OneAmerica’s motion,
TSNA first contends that Plaintiff failed to identify any statute, rule, privilege, or legal
citation to justify sealing the portions of the documents at issue. While OneAmerica’s
motion and supporting brief may have been deficient in this regard, its reply brief has
cited appropriate authority. [See Pl.’s Reply, doc. 52 at 3-5 (citing cases).] Courts have
concluded that concerns about hackers and a cyber attack justified sealing information
about a company’s IT systems. See, e.g., Music Grp. Macao Comm. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote,
No. 14-CV-03078 JSC, 2015 WL 3993147, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (finding a
compelling reason to seal portions of exhibit discussing plaintiff’s network infrastructure
and security systems); EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc, No. 12-CV-01011-JST,
2014 WL 1017514, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) (finding compelling reasons to seal
portion of documents that disclose “confidential technology, product configurations,
security features, and network configurations”); In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13–MD–
02430–LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *3 (N.D .Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (sealing information about
8

how users’ interactions with the Gmail system effect the transmission of messages based
on Google’s assertions that “hackers and spammers could use this information to
circumvent Google’s anti-virus and anti-spam mechanisms”); Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant
Sav. Bank, No. 05-CV-1221, 2009 WL 637165, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 11, 2009) (granting
motion to seal email that appeared to contain “confidential information on specific types
of software used by [defendant]”).
TSNA argues that OneAmerica failed to offer an explanation as to how a hacker
would use any specific information to undertake a data breach. While Plaintiff did not
offer a specific explanation, both Weston and Schiff essentially state that it is impossible
to predict what information would be most useful for a hacker or how a hacker would
execute a breach of OneAmerica’s IT systems. TSNA criticizes Schiff for not reading the
RFP or MITSA, which he did not. Nonetheless, he states that he is familiar with the topics
in those documents, the Counter-Complaint, and the Answer thereto, and that the types of
information that Plaintiff seeks to protect could assist a hacker to breach OneAmerica’s
IT systems or obtain confidential information. The Court credits his opinions.
Zahran v. Trans Union Corp., No. 01–cv–1700, 2002 WL 31010822, at *3 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 9, 2002), TSNA maintains, supports its position that Plaintiff has failed to justify the
sealing of any document. In that case the defendant moved the court to enter a protective
order and to seal certain exhibits and statements in the pleadings, which it argued
contained trade secrets and other confidential commercial information. Id. at *1. The
exhibits at issue contained portions of the defendant’s consumer relations center Dispute
Training Guide and subscriber agreements entered into between the defendant and
9

several of its customers. Id. at *2. The defendant argued that anyone who gained
unauthorized access to its consumer relations system “could alter the consumer credit
database using the information contained in the Dispute Training Guide,” thus
compromising the database. Id. The court “decline[d] to grant a protective order because
of the remote possibility that someone could hack into the database and alter information,
possibly using the information gleaned from the Dispute Training Guide,” reasoning that
“[o]nce the hackers gain access, the integrity and security of [the defendant’s] system is
already compromised.” Id. at *3. Thus, the defendant attempted to justify sealing
documents based on what a hacker could do after a hacker already had gained access.
Here, in contrast, OneAmerica argues that a seal is appropriate in order to prevent a
hacker from gaining access in the first place. Further, Zahran was decided in 2002, more
than thirteen years ago, and before the recent data breaches that occurred at Target,
Anthem, and even the government. While there was a risk of data breaches then, the risk
is of an even greater concern now. And, as Plaintiff argues, the risk of exposure includes
a risk to the confidential personal and financial information of hundreds of thousands of
its customers, including personally identifiable information such as social security
numbers and account numbers.
TSNA also challenges OneAmerica’s attempt to seal information already in the
public domain. There is less justification for protecting information that is already public.
See Kingery v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-01353, 2014 WL 1794863, at *4-5 (S.D.W.
Va. May 6, 2014) (stating the need was not compelling). Here, however, the Court is
persuaded by the assertion that the risk would be heightened because information a
10

hacker would otherwise have to spend time and effort to obtain is “provide[d] in a single
source information.” As OneAmerica notes, under Indiana law, a compilation can
constitute a trade secret or be commercially valuable even if its individual component
parts would not be. See Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2 (defining “trade secret” under the Indiana
Uniform Trade Secret Act to include a compilation of information); N. Elec. Co. v. Torma,
819 N.E.2d 417, 426-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that compilation of data, some of
which was already in the public domain, was entitled to trade secret protection). While
some information that Plaintiff seeks to protect may be public, for example, the location
of its regional offices, it does not appear that information about where OneAmerica’s data
centers and servers are located is also public. Further, it is the compilation of information
about OneAmerica’s IT systems that OneAmerica seeks to protect.
Moreover, the Court agrees that at this stage of the litigation it is unclear that the
information in the RFP and MITSA sought to be protected will be at issue in this action.
Thus, the public interest in disclosure of the information relating to OneAmerica’s IT
systems is weak. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., 2013 WL 5366963, at *3 (noting that
the public interest in the disclosure of the information is not strong where the material
“is unlikely to be critical to the substantive issue of liability”). If identification of the
software, applications, hardware, vendors, regional locations, and IT policies and
procedures becomes critical to the substantive issues in this case, the Court may reweigh
OneAmerica’s interest in privacy and the public’s interest in transparency.

11

Plaintiff asks the Court to seal all of Schedule Y to the MITSA regarding
OneAmerica’s IT operations, policies, and procedures. It argues that the section of the
MITSA reporting such information reveals its “highly confidential information,”
including specific passwords, system commands, and recovery processes. [Pl.’s Br. Supp.,
doc. 42 at 13.] TSNA does not object to redacting specific passwords, system commands,
and recovery processes within Schedule Y. The Court would agree that the portions of
Plaintiff’s IT operations, policies, and procedures should be maintained under seal.
However, Schedule Y has not been filed with the Court and thus there is nothing to seal
and no way to verify the contents of Schedule Y. Although the record suggests that the
MITSA has Schedules identified as Schedule A through Schedule BB, the documents filed
with the Court only contain schedules up to Schedule I. [See doc. 7-1 at 13; docs. 7-1
through 7-6.] It seems that perhaps the entire state court record has not been filed with
this Court. The parties should verify that the entire record has been filed, and if not, then
they should take steps to remedy any omission.
Lastly, TSNA contends that Plaintiff seeks to conceal information about
OneAmerica’s wrongful conduct rather than seeking to seal actual trade secret or
confidential business information. The Court’s review of the allegations of the CounterComplaint and Answer to the Counter-Complaint that Plaintiff seeks to seal suggests that
this may be accurate. Defendants point to one example: “while OneAmerica claims this
Court should redact portions of paragraphs 8, 10, 15 and 38 of the Counter-Complaint
because they specifically identify data center locations, OneAmerica then seeks to redact

12

information well beyond the identity of the locations.”1 [TSNA’s Resp. Br., doc. 46 at 10.]
The Court’s review of the unredacted Answer to Counter-Complaint [doc. 33] as compared
to the redaction thereto [doc. 35] confirms this to be true. It seems that OneAmerica may
have been overzealous in redacting information from its Answer to the Counter-Complaint,
redacting more information than it indicates that it seeks to protect.
The same criticism can be made with respect to the other paragraphs of the
Counter-Complaint and Answer (docs. 19 and 33) that OneAmerica seeks to protect.
Plaintiff asserts that it seeks to protect the locations of its data centers and the identities
of some of its applications, which the Court agrees should be protected, but
OneAmerica’s redaction goes well beyond those pieces of information.
OneAmerica asserts that it also seeks to protect “potential vulnerabilities” in its
applications, servers, and data centers. But this appears to be an effort to protect the
allegations of its alleged wrongful conduct. Thus, no information shall be redacted from
paragraphs 27 and 28, and only the name of the city shall be redacted from paragraph 37.
In addition, OneAmerica may redact the following information from the
corresponding paragraphs OneAmerica’s Answer to the Counter-Complaint: from paragraph
10, line 3, the words after “network” through the end of the first sentence; and from
paragraph 36, the names of the two cities and one state.

Paragraph 37 of the Counter-Complaint also mentions the location of a data center, and it was
redacted in document 35.
1

13

B. TSNA’s Motion to Seal
Turning to TSNA’s motion, OneAmerica filed a response in partial support of
TSNA’s motion to seal. [Doc. 66.] The response states that TSNA’s Motion to Bifurcate
does not contain any specific information about OneAmerica’s IT systems, and thus,
OneAmerica does not seek to seal that motion. A proposed redacted version of the Billing
Agreement was submitted with the response. [See doc. 66-1.] OneAmerica argues that
information that could put OneAmerica’s and its customers’ information at risk should
not be exposed “particularly where that information is not central to the issues that have
been briefed.” [Pl. OneAmerica Finan. Partners, Inc.’s Br. Partial Support TSNA’s Mot. Seal,
doc. 66 at 2.] TSNA’s Motion to Bifurcate concerns Section 1.1 of the Billing Agreement.
OneAmerica asserts that the specific IT software and assets identified later in the
Agreement are not at issue, and the parties’ briefing has not cited any sections or
schedules that reference them. Therefore, it seems that redaction in lieu of filing under
seal in accordance with Local Rule 5-11(c) is appropriate. See S.D. Ind. L.R. 5-11(c)(2)
(“When any of the confidential information in a document is irrelevant or immaterial to
resolution of the matter at issue, the filing party may redact, by blacking out, the
confidential information in lieu of filing under seal.”) The parties and the Court should
refer to the redacted copy of the Billing Agreement that is attached to Plaintiff OneAmerica
Financial Partners, Inc.’s Brief in Partial Support of TSNA’s Motion to Seal [see doc. 66-1.]
However, the unredacted copy of the Billing Agreement, which is attached to TSNA’s
Motion to Bifurcate and for Speedy Trial on Count III of Its Counterclaim, shall be maintained
under seal.
14

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Plaintiff’s Motion to Maintain Certain Portions of Documents under Seal [doc. 41]:
(1) The sealed documents that are part of Electronic Filing Nos. 6 and 7 in this case [see
docs. 6-1 through 6-4 and 7-1 through 7-6] shall be maintained under seal;
(2) Exhibit A to TSNA’s Counterclaims, Excerpt from TSNA Application Collection Worksheets
[doc. 19-1] shall be maintained under seal;
(3) Electronic Filing Nos. 19 and 33 shall be maintained under seal; and
(4) Within 14 days of this date, the parties shall file new redacted versions of the CounterComplaint [doc. 19] and Answer to the Counter-Complaint [doc. 33], respectively,
redacting the following:
¶ 8, in the third line, the six words between “in” and “and,” which identify the location
of one of the data centers;
¶ 10, the words following “primarily housed” through the end of the sentence;
¶ 15, the entire parenthetical at the end of the sentence;
¶ 26, the three names of the applications contained in the parenthetical in line 3 and
the name of the city in line 5;
¶ 34, the name of the city and state in line 6;
¶ 36(B), the name of the city in line 1;
¶ 36(C), the names of the two cities and one state;
¶ 37, the name of the city in the last line;
¶ 38, the city and state identified on the second line;
15

¶ 54, the identities of the three applications at the end of the sentence; and
Exhibit A to the Counter-Complaint.
No information shall be redacted from ¶¶ 27, 28, and 36(A) and (D); and
The following shall be redacted from corresponding paragraphs of the Answer to
Counter-Complaint:
¶ 10, line 3, the words after “network” through the end of the sentence; and
¶ 36, the names of the two cities and one state.
The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART TSNA’s Motion to Seal Its
Motion to Bifurcate and for Speedy Trial on Count III of Its Counterclaim [doc. 56]. The
unredacted copy of the Billing Agreement [doc. 55-1] shall be maintained under seal and
OneAmerica’s proposed redacted Billing Agreement [doc. 66-1] shall be substituted for the
unredacted version in the public record. The Motion to Bifurcate [doc. 55] shall be
unsealed in 14 days.
SO ORDERED: 03/09/2016

Electronic Distribution to All Counsel of Record

16