Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York

S.D. New York

Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 20, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-04994·Unknown

Opinion

eee WRN DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ee x DATE FILED: \\ JEFFREY LEONARD, et al., Dk Plaintiffs, ORDER -against- 18 Civ. 4994 (AKH) JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and JOHN : HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY : (U.S.A.) : Defendants. □

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: The parties ask the Court by joint letter of November 8, 2019, pursuant to my Individual Rule 2.E, to rule on the scope of defendants’ production of communications between defendants and putative class members. It is hereby ordered that defendants must produce all settlement agreements with putative class members. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied with respect to all other communications. It is further ordered that, going forward, the following conditions shall apply to communications between defendants and putative class members: 1. Defendants may, without notice to interim class counsel, communicate with putative class members via their counsel to ascertain if a putative class member is interested in discussing settlement with defendants. Defendants may only approach putative class members through putative class members’ counsel.

2. Upon determining that a putative class member is interested in discussing settlement, defendants must identify that putative class member to interim counsel at least seven days before beginning substantive discussions. 3. Putative class members that are contacted by defendants’ counsel may apply to this Court through interim class counsel (or through the putative class members’ own counsel) to view information deemed “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. For prior rulings consistent with these conditions, see American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-mc-40 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2019), ECF No. 840; Dial Corp. v. News Corp., No. 13-cv-6802, 2015 WL 9256930, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015). SO ORDERED. Dated: novenvel fone New York, New York LVIN K“HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

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

eee WRN DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ee x DATE FILED: \\ JEFFREY LEONARD, et al., Dk Plaintiffs, ORDER -against- 18 Civ. 4994 (AKH) JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and JOHN : HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY : (U.S.A.) : Defendants. □

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: The parties ask the Court by joint letter of November 8, 2019, pursuant to my Individual Rule 2.E, to rule on the scope of defendants’ production of communications between defendants and putative class members. It is hereby ordered that defendants must produce all settlement agreements with putative class members. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied with respect to all other communications. It is further ordered that, going forward, the following conditions shall apply to communications between defendants and putative class members: 1. Defendants may, without notice to interim class counsel, communicate with putative class members via their counsel to ascertain if a putative class member is interested in discussing settlement with defendants. Defendants may only approach putative class members through putative class members’ counsel.

2. Upon determining that a putative class member is interested in discussing settlement, defendants must identify that putative class member to interim counsel at least seven days before beginning substantive discussions. 3. Putative class members that are contacted by defendants’ counsel may apply to this Court through interim class counsel (or through the putative class members’ own counsel) to view information deemed “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. For prior rulings consistent with these conditions, see American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-mc-40 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2019), ECF No. 840; Dial Corp. v. News Corp., No. 13-cv-6802, 2015 WL 9256930, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015). SO ORDERED. Dated: novenvel fone New York, New York LVIN K“HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York (Leonard v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.