Arbol Inc. v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED ARBOL INC., DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/29/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 25 Civ. 1390 (AT) HCC INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC. and ORDER SCOTT KLEMM, Defendants.

ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court has reviewed the parties’ letters dated April 28, 2025. ECF Nos. 14-17. □□□□□□□□□□□ motion for leave to file its amended complaint is GRANTED. ECF Nos. 16-17. By April 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint. Defendants’ motion for an extension of the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's amended complaint, ECF No. 14, is also GRANTED. By May 21, 2025, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint.

Plaintiff's first request at ECF No. 15 for leave to file Exhibits 3 and 4 to the proposed amended complaint, ECF Nos. 17-4 and 17-5, with limited redactions is GRANTED. The exhibits are judicial documents because they are attached to a proposed pleading. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 140 (2d Cir. 2016). The third parties’ interests in their personal information, including their addresses, identification numbers, salary, and benefits, outweigh the presumption of public access that applies here, Valassis Comime’ns, Inc. v. News Corp., No. 17 Civ. 7378, 2020 WL 2190708, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020), and Plaintiff's proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect those interests. Accordingly, ECF Nos. 16-4 and 16-5 shall remain sealed, and Plaintiff may file redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 4 to the amended complaint without making an additional request for leave to file the exhibits under seal.

Plaintiff's second request at ECF No. 15 for an extension of the time for non-party Deel, Inc. (“Deel”) to justify the requested sealing of Exhibit 2 to the proposed amended complaint, ECF No. 17-3, is GRANTED. By May 13, 2025, Deel, through a letter filed by counsel or by relaying its position through Plaintiff, shall justify the sealing of Exhibit 2 or explain why narrow, proposed redactions to the exhibit are appropriate. Deel is advised that “[c]ourts in this District have long held that bargained-for confidentiality does not overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents.” Bernsten v. O'Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (collecting cases).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 14-17.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2025 New York, New York ~_ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge