Wood et al v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. et al

Filing 370

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court shall file the letter on the public docket. Turning to the substance of the letter, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request to seal a portion of the September 6, 2018 conference before the Honorable Debra C. Freeman. The C ourt has reviewed the audio file and finds that Judge Freeman excused opposing counsel and ordered that, should a transcript of the conference be made, the ex parte portion should be placed under seal. The portion of the recording that was ex parte b egins at 36:40 and ends at 55:15. Therefore, the Court orders two transcripts be created: (1) a transcript with the specified portion redacted, which shall be filed on the public docket; and (2) a transcript with the specified portion unredacted, whi ch shall be filed under seal and have restricted party view limited to the Court and Plaintiffs. The parties are directed to attach this order to any request to transcribe the conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 6/30/2022) (kv)

Case 1:14-cv-07535-AT-DCF Document 370 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TZVEE WOOD and ANDREA MALESTER,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 6/30/2022

Plaintiffs,
-against-

14 Civ. 7535 (AT)

MUTUAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
TZVEE WOOD and ANDREA MALESTER,
Plaintiffs,
-againstMUTUAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSES, INC., et
al.,

18 Civ. 726 (AT)
ORDER

Defendants.
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs’ ex parte and in camera letter dated June 7, 2022,
received via email on June 22, 2022. The Court has determined that the letter does not describe
interactions between Plaintiffs and their former counsel in such detail that attorney client
privilege concerns are implicated. Therefore, the Court has determined that the letter should not
have been filed ex parte and in camera.1 Accordingly, the Court shall file the letter on the public
docket.
Turning to the substance of the letter, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to seal a
portion of the September 6, 2018 conference before the Honorable Debra C. Freeman. The
Court has reviewed the audio file and finds that Judge Freeman excused opposing counsel and
ordered that, should a transcript of the conference be made, the ex parte portion should be placed
under seal. The portion of the recording that was ex parte begins at 36:40 and ends at 55:15.
Therefore, the Court orders two transcripts be created: (1) a transcript with the specified portion
redacted, which shall be filed on the public docket; and (2) a transcript with the specified portion
unredacted, which shall be filed under seal and have restricted party view limited to the Court
and Plaintiffs. The parties are directed to attach this order to any request to transcribe the
conference.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2022
New York, New York
Plaintiffs noted that they do not oppose the letter being “unsealed after the matter is fully resolved.” See, e.g., No.
14 Civ. 7535, ECF No. 368 at 5. This order fully resolved the matter at issue in the letter.
1