Diocese of Rochester Chapter 11 — CNA Motion to Seal Denied

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

July 22, 2025 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

The Diocese of Rochester

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2-19-20905

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (9.9K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re:

The Diocese of Rochester, Bankruptcy Case No. 19-20905-PRW
Chapter 11
Debtor.

DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING CNA’s EX PARTE MOTION
SEEKING TO FILE CONFIRMATION OBJECTIONS UNDER SEAL

PAUL R. WARREN, U.S.B.J.

The Continental Insurance Company (“CNA”) filed an ex parte motion requesting an order
authorizing it to file its objections to confirmation under seal. (ECF No. 3268). The Court was
provided with a copy of CNA’s objections to confirmation for in camera review. Pointing to this
Court’s Order requiring attorneys representing multiple claimants to comply with Rule 2019 FRBP
(ECF No. 2142), and characterizing that Order as a “confidentiality order,” CNA expresses
concerns about what “information” can and cannot be filed on the docket. Obviously, CNA is
being careful to avoid a disclosure of information obtained from Attorney Jeff Anderson through
the Rule 2019 disclosures, which was marked as “confidential” at the time of disclosure.
The Court’s Order directing attorneys representing multiple claimants, like Mr. Anderson,
to provide information required by Rule 2019—including information concerning litigation
financing—included a provision that “[a]ll documents relating to litigation financing agreements
shall not be placed on the electronic docket.” (ECF No. 2142 at 2 n.2 (emphasis added)). Here,
CNA is not proposing to file such documents on the docket, it is making a legal argument about
the potential issues related to litigation financing in its objection to confirmation, which includes
the amount loaned, terms of the loan(s), and alleged potential impacts on borrowers. Further,
CNA’s expert witness, Professor Samir Parikh, is expected to testify in detail about the litigation
financing obtained by Mr. Anderson. Should the Court expect CNA to request that no digital
recording or transcript of Professor Parikh’s testimony be made at trial as the logical next step?
Here, CNA seeks to file its entire 72-page objection to confirmation under seal. If granted, the
public would be denied access to the entire document. And yet, only a handful of words have been

highlighted by CNA as containing potentially confidential information.
“[T]he fact that there is a confidentiality order in place does not displace this Court’s duty
to scrutinize the request for a seal order [under § 107(b)].” In re Anthracite Cap., Inc., 492 B.R.
162, 180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking a seal order must demonstrate that the
material contained in a filing is either: (1) in the nature of a trade secret or commercial information,
or (2) scandalous or defamatory. 11 U.S.C. § 107 (b)(1) & (2). Here, CNA argues that the
information concerning litigation financing received by Mr. Anderson is scandalous or
defamatory. It is well-settled that potential reputational harm is insufficient to overcome the
common law presumption in favor of public access to court records. In re Food Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 359 B.R. 543, 561 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). In the Second Circuit, the Courts apply a strict
interpretation of the term “scandalous.” See In re Anthracite Cap., Inc., 492 B.R. at 176; In re
Food Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 359 B.R. at 558.
The information concerning litigation financing is not scandalous. Therefore, the objection
cannot be sealed under § 107(b)(2) of the Code. That leaves § 107(b)(1) as the basis to seal the
objection, although not asserted by CNA. If information is “confidential . . . commercial
information,” the court is required to protect an entity from disclosure of that information. 11
U.S.C. § 107 (b)(1). “Information is not considered ‘commercial’ merely because it relates to
business affairs. Commercial information is ‘information which would cause an unfair advantage
to competitors by providing them information as to the commercial operations of [an entity].’” In
re Anthracite Cap., Inc., 492 B.R. at 178 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
“[Section] 107(b)(1) is meant to prevent business competitors from seeing confidential business-
related information and using that information to the detriment of the [entity].” Id. at 179.
The existence of a so-called confidentiality order or confidentiality agreement is not

outcome determinative. Filings with the Court can only be sealed from public view if one of the
two exceptions under § 107(b) of the Code are demonstrated by the movant. The Court finds that
CNA’s objection to confirmation is not entitled to protections under either § 107(b)(1) or (2). As
a result, CNA’s ex parte motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 22, 2025 ___________/s/___________
Rochester, New York HON. PAUL R. WARREN
United States Bankruptcy Judge