Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 105

ORDER granting 101 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 102 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit 5 to the Expert Report of Terry Long (Dkt. No. 94-6), portions of the Expert Report of Terry Long (Dkt. No. 94), and excerpts of the Deposition of Terry Long be filed under seal and in redacted form. See Dkt. Nos. 101, 102. The Court previously granted Defendant Brighthouse's Motions to Seal Exhibit 5 to the Expert Report of Terry Long and portions of th e Expert Report of Terry Long and, for the same reasons stated in the Court's Order granting Defendant Brighthouse's Motions to Seal, see Dkt. No. 100, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Seal the same. Plaintiff also requests that excerpts of the Deposition of Terry Long ("the Long Deposition") be filed under seal because "it may contain sensitive personal and proprietary commercial information." Dkt. No. 102. The Court finds that Plaintiff's reques t to seal the Long Deposition until the parties are able to meet and confer to to determine which testimony, if any, is appropriate for redaction is necessary to protect proprietary and commercially sensitive trade-secret information. Although &quo t;[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," this right is not absolute, and courts "must balance competing considerations against" the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ("[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion o f thetrial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case."). Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that the Long Deposition may be filed under seal as an exhibit to Plaintiff's forthcoming Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Terry Long. Within seven (7) days of the filing of the Long Deposition under seal, Plaintiff shall re-file the Long Deposition as an exhibit in redacted form, as necessary. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. Nos. 101 and 102. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 9/3/2024) (jca)

Hon. Margaret M. Garnett

August 30, 2024
Tyler Litke
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Andrei Rado
Law Office of Andrei Rado PLLC
99 Wall Street, Suite 1343
New York, NY 10005
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Application GRANTED. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit 5 to the Expert Report of Terry Long (Dkt. No. 94-6), portions of the Expert Report
of Terry Long (Dkt. No. 94), and excerpts of the Deposition of Terry Long be filed under seal and in redacted form. See Dkt. Nos. 101, 102.
The Court previously granted Defendant Brighthouse's Motions to Seal Exhibit 5 to the Expert Report of Terry Long and portions of the
Expert Report of Terry Long and, for the same reasons stated in the Court's Order granting Defendant Brighthouse's Motions to Seal, see Dkt.
No. 100, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Seal the same.
Plaintiff also requests that excerpts of the Deposition of Terry Long (“the Long Deposition”) be filed under seal because “it may contain
sensitive personal and proprietary commercial information.” Dkt. No. 102. The Court finds that Plaintiff's request to seal the Long
Deposition until the parties are able to meet and confer to to determine which testimony, if any, is appropriate for redaction is necessary to
protect proprietary and commercially sensitive trade-secret information. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial
documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the
presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the
trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Thus, it is hereby ORDERED
that the Long Deposition may be filed under seal as an exhibit to Plaintiff's forthcoming Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Expert
Report of Terry Long. Within seven (7) days of the filing of the Long Deposition under seal, Plaintiff shall re-file the Long Deposition as an
exhibit in redacted form, as necessary.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. Nos. 101 and 102.
SO ORDERED. Dated September 3, 2024

HON. MARGARET M. GARNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2