In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company

Filing 633

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: (621 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF) LETTER MOTION to Seal Sensitive Information in a Document Submitted in Support of Defendants Motion for Reconsideration addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Dorit Ungar Bla ck dated April 19, 2022. filed by LSH CO, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as securities intermediary for LSH CO, (607 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF) LETTER MOTION to Seal Sensitive Information in the Parties' Summary Judgment and Daube rt Motions addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Dorit Ungar Black dated April 14, 2022. filed by LSH CO, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as securities intermediary for LSH CO, (612 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF, 612 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF) MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Seal . filed by Willis Towers Watson, (615 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF) LETTER MOTION to Seal and Redact Documents in Connection with Summary Judgment and Daubert Briefing addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Khai LeQuang dated April 14, 2022. filed by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as securities intermediary for EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, (602 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF) LETTER MOTION to Seal < i>Proposed Protected Information in the parties' summary judgment and Daubert motions addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Robert C. Hora dated April 14, 2022. filed by AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, (620 in 1:16-cv-00740-JMF) LETTER MOTION to Seal Certain Documents Filed in Connection with Equitable's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 608] addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Robert C. Hora dated April 19, 2022. filed by AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The Court finds, substantially for the reasons that the parties and non-party Willis Towers Watson state, that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to the reasons that justify sealing, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Ci r. 2019). LSH Plaintiffs are on notice that any future motion failing to comply with the Court's Individual Rules may be summarily denied on that basis. The parties shall ensure that, within one week of todays date, the docket is consistent w ith the foregoing. That is, to the extent that a document needs to be unsealed or filed in public view with redactions, the relevant party or parties shall file it in that time or file a letter listing that relevant documents for the Court to endor se directing the Clerk of Court to alter the level of access on ECF. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 16-CV-740, ECF Nos. 602, 607, 612, 615, 620, and 621, and Docket No. 18-CV-2111, ECF Nos. 274 and 275. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/29/22) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:16-cv-00740-JMF, 1:17-cv-07751-JMF (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
IN RE:
:
:
AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
:
COI LITIGATION
:
:
This Document Relates to All Actions
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

16-CV-740 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
The parties move for continued sealing and redaction of documents filed in connection
with their cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions to exclude the testimony of
certain experts, see ECF Nos. 602, 607, and 615, and Defendant AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company’s (“AXA”) motion for reconsideration of a portion of the Court’s summary judgment
decision, see ECF Nos. 620 and 621. 1 Non-party Willis Towers Watson also moves to intervene
to seek an order sealing certain documents filed in connection with the parties’ cross motions for
summary judgment. See ECF No. 612.
Upon reviewing their submissions, the proposals of the parties and non-party Willis
Towers Watson for continued redactions and sealing are adopted. To begin with, there is no
dispute that all of these filings — which were originally submitted in connection with
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and, in some cases, again in connection with
AXA’s motion for reconsideration — are “judicial documents.” See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[D]ocuments submitted to a court for its
consideration in a summary judgment motion are — as a matter of law — judicial documents to
which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First
1

All references are to the docket in 16-CV-740, unless otherwise stated.

Amendment.”). That said, the Court finds, substantially for the reasons that the parties and nonparty Willis Towers Watson state, that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to the
reasons that justify sealing, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019).
Two final observations are warranted. First, the parties should take note of the Court’s
Individual Rule 7.A. To the extent the parties’ submission include information that may be
redacted without Court approval, the parties are required to redact that information before filing
the document, consistent with Rule 7.A. No future motion for sealing and redaction should seek
leave to redact a document on the basis that is contains, for example, a social security number,
birth date, or other category of information addressed by Rule 7.A. Second, the Court warns
LSH Plaintiffs that their motion for sealing and redaction is not in compliance with the Court’s
Individual Rule 7.C(ii)-(iii). See ECF No. 607. The Court would be on firm ground to deny
LSH Plaintiffs’ motion on that basis alone. LSH Plaintiffs are on notice that any future motion
failing to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules may be summarily denied on that basis.
The parties shall ensure that, within one week of today’s date, the docket is consistent
with the foregoing. That is, to the extent that a document needs to be unsealed or filed in public
view with redactions, the relevant party or parties shall file it in that time or file a letter listing
that relevant documents for the Court to endorse directing the Clerk of Court to alter the level of
access on ECF. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 16-CV-740, ECF Nos.
602, 607, 612, 615, 620, and 621, and Docket No. 18-CV-2111, ECF Nos. 274 and 275.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2022
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

2