Chicco v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 8, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-10593·Unknown

Opinion

275 MADISON AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR

ATTORNEYS AT LAW F 212.297.0700 F 212.297.0730 info@riemerhess.com | www.riemerhess.com

Via CM/ECF April 8, 2022 Hon. Denise Cote, U.S.D United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 1910 New York, New York 10007 RE: Michelle Chicco v. First Unum Life Insurance Company, No. 1:20-cy-10593-DLC LETTER MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS Your Honor: Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 5.2, and Section 8(b) of Your Honot’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Plaintiff Michelle Chicco respectfully moves this Court for an order to maintain under seal two exhibits to the April 8, 2022 Affirmation of Scott M. Riemer: Exhibit A: ‘The 2020 Finance & Operations Report of AmLaw Second 100, issued June 2021, by PricewatethouseCoopers LLP, and Exhibit B: Retainer agreements of the 10 most recent hourly rate clients of Riemer Hess LLC, including the hourly rate litigation retainer agreement with a curtent client in a pending litigation. Good cause exists to maintain these exhibits under seal. Ms. Chicco has designated both of these documents as confidential under the So-Ordered Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (ECF No. 26), District courts within the Second Circuit “enjoyf] considerable discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents filed in federal courts.” Geller », Branie Int’ Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). Exhibit A consists of a highly confidential report of PricewaterhouseCoopers that is intended for internal benchmarking and decisionmaking. It is not intended to be disclosed to third parties, and its disclosute would result in commercial damage to Riemer Hess because the information could be used by competitors without paying a fec. See Unied States v. Awrodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 2d Cir. 1995) (“Commercial competitors seeking an advantage over rivals need not be indulged in the name of monitoring the courts.”). Riemer Hess’s relationship with PricewaterhouseCoopers would also be

damaged. When Riemer Hess purchased this report, PricewaterhouseCoopers instructed that it does not condone the use of the data in a way that “would cither make the information available to non- participants or identify or expose patticipating law firms to other patticipants or non-patticipants.” Exhibit B should be maintained under seal because it contains highly proprietary material that implicates the attorney-client privilege. ‘The exhibit consists of the actual terms of agreements with Riemer Hess clients, including retainer amounts, fee ranges, and the names of insurance companies administering the claims of Riemer Hess clients. The information in Exhibit B is confidential because it implicates the attorney client privilege. See FEOC ». Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28724, at *13 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 2, 2012) (allowing redaction to “conceal client names and other client-identifying information implicating the attorney-client privilege”). The information in Exhibit B is also confidential because it is highly proprietary. See GoSMiLE, Ine. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N.Y, 2011) (granting motion to seal exhibits to motion for preliminary injunction that “contain[ed] highly proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”); of United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Commercial competitors seeking an advantage over tivals need not be indulged in the name of monitoring the courts.”). For all of the foregoing reasons, Ms, Chicco respectfully requests that the Court enter an order to maintain under seal Exhibits A and B to the April 8, 2022 Affirmation of Scott M, Riemer. Dated: New York, New York April 8, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

A KA By: /s/ Jewnifer L. Hess = . Jennifer L, Hess $3684) i) oe RIEMER HESS LLC Aitorneys for Plaintiff, Michelle Chicco ufe/20- 275 Madison Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 297-0700 jhess@riemerhess.com

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chicco v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Chicco v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company (Chicco v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Amodeo
71 F.3d 1044 (Second Circuit, 1995)
GoSmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, DMDPC
769 F. Supp. 2d 630 (S.D. New York, 2011)