JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company

S.D. New York

JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company

DecidedJuly 7, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-02882

StatusUnknown

This text of JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company (JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

LHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK penne nen eee K JMG IMPROVEMENTS, INC., et al., : : ORDER Plaintiffs, : 20 Civ. 2882 (RA) (GWG) -V.-

ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., : Defendants. : penne nen eee K GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge Judge Abrams has referred an application from plaintiff made by letter dated July 6, 2021, regarding the filing of material designated as confidential to the undersigned. It appears that this letter (without the attachments) contains no confidential material and thus it must be filed on the public docket. Plaintiff is directed to do so forthwith. Counsel for defendants shall respond to the July 6, 2021, letter by filing a letter on or before July 14, 2021. The Court notes that, because the material at issue is contained in a motion for summary judgment, the “confidential” designation permitted under the Court’s Confidentiality Order is no longer relevant. Instead, defendants must provide justification for sealing that satisfies the demanding standards applicable to summary judgment filings as set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). If defendants’ responsive letter itself contains confidential material, defendants should file on the docket by the scheduled deadline a redacted version of their responsive letter. An unredacted courtesy copy of the responsive letter may be sent to Chambers by email. (Counsel should contact Chambers by telephone to obtain the email address of Chambers.) As for plaintiff's cross-motion papers, until the dispute is resolved, plaintiff should file on the docket by the scheduled deadline a redacted version of its cross-motion — that is, a version that redacts the material designated as confidential and any references to it. An unredacted courtesy copy of the motion papers shall be supplied to Judge Abrams by email. If the Court ultimately rules that defendants have failed to justify any or all of the redactions, plaintiff shall promptly refile any affected document in accordance with the Court’s ruling.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2021 New York, New York dud Ge lex. RIEL W. RENSTEIN United States Magistrate Judge

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

LHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK penne nen eee K JMG IMPROVEMENTS, INC., et al., : : ORDER Plaintiffs, : 20 Civ. 2882 (RA) (GWG) -V.-

ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., : Defendants. : penne nen eee K GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge Judge Abrams has referred an application from plaintiff made by letter dated July 6, 2021, regarding the filing of material designated as confidential to the undersigned. It appears that this letter (without the attachments) contains no confidential material and thus it must be filed on the public docket. Plaintiff is directed to do so forthwith. Counsel for defendants shall respond to the July 6, 2021, letter by filing a letter on or before July 14, 2021. The Court notes that, because the material at issue is contained in a motion for summary judgment, the “confidential” designation permitted under the Court’s Confidentiality Order is no longer relevant. Instead, defendants must provide justification for sealing that satisfies the demanding standards applicable to summary judgment filings as set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). If defendants’ responsive letter itself contains confidential material, defendants should file on the docket by the scheduled deadline a redacted version of their responsive letter. An unredacted courtesy copy of the responsive letter may be sent to Chambers by email. (Counsel should contact Chambers by telephone to obtain the email address of Chambers.) As for plaintiff's cross-motion papers, until the dispute is resolved, plaintiff should file on the docket by the scheduled deadline a redacted version of its cross-motion — that is, a version that redacts the material designated as confidential and any references to it. An unredacted courtesy copy of the motion papers shall be supplied to Judge Abrams by email. If the Court ultimately rules that defendants have failed to justify any or all of the redactions, plaintiff shall promptly refile any affected document in accordance with the Court’s ruling.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2021 New York, New York dud Ge lex. RIEL W. RENSTEIN United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jmg-improvements-inc-v-arch-specialty-insurance-company-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack