Pacific Life Insurance Company et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon

Filing 270

ORDER granting 269 Letter Motion to Seal. Motion granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 10/15/2021) (mml)

Mayer Brown LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1001
United States of America
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
mayerbrown.com

October 14, 2021

Matthew D. Ingber

BY ECF

Partner
T: [phone]
F: [phone]

The Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:

Pacific Life Insurance Company, et al., v. The
Bank of New York Mellon, No. 17-cv-1388
(S.D.N.Y.)

[e-mail]

10/15/2021

Dear Judge Lehrburger:
On behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”), and pursuant to Your Honor’s
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, we write to request that the Court maintain sealing over
portions of BNYM’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Counter-Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Reply 56.1”)
(Dkt. 266) (attached as Exhibit A). BNYM does not wish to maintain sealing over any
documents not specifically referenced herein. BNYM has conferred with Plaintiffs, and
Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not object to the redactions applied to BNYM’s Reply 56.1.
BNYM has analyzed the relevant material, and as set forth below, requests that portions
of its Reply 56.1 be sealed in accordance with the three-part test articulated in Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016). “Under this test, the Court must: (i)
determine whether the documents in question are ‘judicial documents’; (ii) assess the weight of
the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing
considerations against the presumption of access.” Doe v. City of New York, 2019 WL 4392533,
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2019) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20). The documents for which
BNYM seeks to maintain sealing are not “judicial documents.” See, e.g., Under Seal v. Under
Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“‘[D]ocuments that play no role in the
performance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery’” are
not “judicial documents” (quoting SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001)).
On August 19, 2021, the Court ordered sealed six exhibits from the Kane Declaration
(Kane Exhibits 13, 17, 219, 227, 229, and 240) and ordered redacted the corresponding portions
of Plaintiffs’ Counter-Statement of Undisputed Fact. See Order Granting Letter Motion to Seal
(Dkt. 258). BNYM now moves to seal portions of its Reply 56.1 that correspond either to (i)
previously redacted portions of Plaintiffs’ Counter-Statement of Undisputed Fact (see ¶¶ II–11,
Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising an association of legal practices that are separate entities including
Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership)
and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian partnership).

Case 1
Mayer Brown LLP
The Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger
October 14, 2021
Page 2
II-517–19, II-523–26, II-557) or (ii) citations to the six exhibits previously ordered sealed (see
BNYM’s Responses to ¶¶ II–11, II-517–19, II-523–26, II-557). For the same reasons adopted by
the Court in its Order Granting Letter Motion to Seal, and incorporated herein, BNYM
respectfully requests that these references be ordered redacted to maintain the sealing
designations previously granted.
We appreciate the Court’s attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
/s/ Matthew D. Ingber
Matthew D. Ingber

Motion granted.

10/15/2021