The opinion
[esses SY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | Doc #:
anne K DATE FILED: jion0 □
JENNIFER RAND, a —
Plaintiff, 21-CV-10744 (VB)(VF)
-against- ORDER
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendants.
VICTORIA REZNIK, United States Magistrate Judge:
Currently before the Court is Defendant’s request that Exhibits 3 through 13 of Plaintiffs
June 13 letter (ECF No. 57-3 to 57-13) remain under seal and that the Court permit
corresponding redactions to Plaintiffs June 13 letter. (ECF No. 62). For the reasons that follow,
Defendant’s request to seal is GRANTED with respect to Exhibits 3-5 and 7-10, and DENIED
with respect to Exhibits 6 and 11-13, subject to a renewed motion proposing narrowly tailored
redactions. Also, Defendant’s proposed redactions to the underlying June 13 letter (ECF No. 62-
1) are DENIED and Defendant is directed to file revised proposed redactions to this letter
consistent with the Court’s ruling with respect to the accompanying exhibits.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2023, Defendant submitted a letter to the Hon. Vincent Briccetti seeking leave
to file a motion to quash a third-party subpoena issued by Plaintiff to Mandiant Inc. (ECF No.
54). On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response letter containing thirteen exhibits and submitted
a request to file this letter and the accompanying exhibits under seal. (ECF Nos. 56 and 57). On
June 14, 2023, Judge Briccetti granted Plaintiff’s motion to seal, but directed the parties to file a
further application proposing redactions to Plaintiff's letter and exhibits that complies with
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). (ECF No. 58). Also
on June 14, 2023, Judge Briccetti referred this case to a magistrate judge for the purpose of
general pre-trial matters.1 In response to Judge Briccetti’s Order, on June 21, 2023, Defendant
filed a letter requesting that Exhibits 3 through 13 of Plaintiff’s June 13 letter (ECF No. 57-3 to
57-13)2 remain under seal and that the Court permit corresponding redactions to Plaintiff’s June
13 letter. (ECF No. 62). Defendant noted in their submission that Plaintiff takes no position
regarding Defendant’s request for these exhibits to remain sealed and for the June 13 letter to be
redacted.
DISCUSSION
The common law and the First Amendment accord a presumption of public access to
judicial documents. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). A
“judicial document” is “a filed item that is ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function
and useful in the judicial process.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119). To overcome the
presumption of public access, the court must make specific, on the record findings for each
individual document that sealing (1) is necessary “to preserve higher values,” and (2) “is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (citation omitted); Brown v.
Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 48 (2d Cir. 2019).
Although the presumption of public access attaches to all judicial documents, “the
presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes . . . is
1 Although initially referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause, on June 20, 2023, this case was transferred to
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik.
2 Duplicate versions of these exhibits and an unredacted version of the June 13 letter were filed under ECF Nos. 63-
1 to 63-12
2
generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in
connection with dispositive motions...” Brown, 929 F.3d at 41, 50. “Thus, while a court must still
articulate specific and substantial reasons” for sealing material filed in connection with a
discovery dispute, “the reasons usually need not be as compelling as those required to seal”
filings connected to a dispositive motion. Id. Here, because the June 13 letter and exhibits were
filed in connection with a discovery dispute, the presumption of public access that attaches to
these documents is lower.
Regardless, sealing is appropriate if the Court can articulate specific and on the record
findings that higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing. United States v. Erie County.,
N.Y., 763 F.3d 235, 243 (2d Cir. 2014). For instance, courts in this District routinely permit
parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business
interests and financial information. See, e.g., Rubik’s Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-
6559 (PGG) (KHP), 2021 WL 1085338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021); Gracyzk v. Verizon
Commc’ns, Inc., No. 18-CV-6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020)
(citing cases).
A. Exhibits 3-5 and 7-103
Exhibit 3 is a November 2021 Statement of Work between Mandiant, a non-party to this
litigation, and Alston & Bird LLP (counsel for Travelers), and contains confidential commercial
information, subject to a contractual confidentiality agreement. (ECF No. 62 at 2). Exhibits 4
and 5 are confidential communications between Travelers and regulatory bodies regarding the
fraudulent use of the ForAgents portal at issue in this case and contain confidential and
3 The descriptions of the exhibits that follow are based on Defendant’s representations in their letter motion to seal,
as well as the Court’s independent review of the underlying documents.
3
competitively sensitive information concerning the organization, structure, and response tactics
of Travelers’ cybersecurity team. (ECF No. 62 at 2). Exhibit 7 is a confidential work
assignment agreement between Travelers and Mandiant regarding an external penetration test
that Mandiant conducted against Travelers’s systems in or around October 2020. Id. at 3.
Exhibits 8 and 10 are recent and highly confidential external cybersecurity assessments of
Defendant’s cybersecurity networks, while Exhibit 9 is an internal company presentation to
Travelers’s Board of Directors regarding Defendant’s cybersecurity risk, disaster recovery, and
insurance. Id.
Based on my review of the underlying documents and the statements made by the
Defendant, the Court finds that Exhibits 3-5 and 7-10 should remain under seal in their entirety,
as public release of this information would threaten cybersecurity efforts and/or reveal
confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information.
B. Exhibits 6 and 11-13
Defendant states that Exhibit 6 reflects confidential communications between Travelers
and the Investigations and Intelligence Division of NYDFS. Id. However, unlike Exhibits 4 and
5, which also involve regulatory bodies, the bulk of Exhibit 6 involves an e-mail exchange
regarding publicly available industry guidance, as well as publicly available facts about the data
breach at issue in this case.
Defendant states that Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 are confidential breach notification letters
that contain confidential business information regarding the incident at issue, as well as about
Travelers’s insurance policies. Id. at 3. However, a portion of these exhibits describe publicly
available facts about the data breach at issue in this case. To the extent these exhibits describe
4
confidential business information about Traveler’s insurance policies, that information can be
redacted.
Based on my review of the underlying documents and the statements made by the
Defendant, the Court finds that Defendant’s request to seal Exhibits 6 and 11-13 is DENIED,
subject to a renewed motion proposing more narrowly tailored redactions.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, Defendant’s request to seal is GRANTED with respect
to Exhibits 3-5 and 7-10 and DENIED with respect to Exhibits 6 and 11-13, subject to a renewed
motion proposing narrowly tailored redactions to be submitted by Defendant on or before August
4, 2023. Also, Defendant’s proposed redactions to the underlying June 13 letter (ECF No. 62-1)
are DENIED and on or before August 4, 2023, Defendant is directed to file revised proposed
redactions consistent with the Court’s ruling with respect to the above-referenced exhibits.
ECF Numbers 57 and 63, along with their corresponding exhibits were filed under seal
and accessible only to selected parties. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to maintain
ECF Nos. 57-3, 57-4, 57-5, 57-7, 57-8, 57-9, and 57-10 under seal and accessible only to
selected parties. In addition, the Clerk of Court is directed to maintain duplicate filings 63-2, 63-
3, 63-4, 63-6, 63-7, 63-8, and 63-9 under seal and accessible only to selected parties as well.
Also, the clerk of Court is directed to maintain ECF Nos. 57, 57-6, 57-11, 57-12, 57-13,
63-1, 63-5, 63-10, 63-11, and 63-12 under seal and accessible only to selected parties pending
submission of a renewed motion.
The clerk of the court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 62.
5
SO ORDERED.
DATED: New York, New York
July 19, 2023
Ze
en _ ze
APE a
VICTORIA REZ
United States Magistrate Judge