Carrington v. Graden et al

Filing 150

ORDER granting 149 Motion to Seal Document: Application GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/25/2019) (jwh)

599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6069
+1.212.848.4000
D: 212.848.4424
D: 212.848.4432

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

November 25, 2019
BY ECF AND EMAIL
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
United States District Judge
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re:

MEMO ENDORSED

Rovier Carrington v. Brian Graden et al., No. 18-cv-04609 (KPF)

Dear Judge Failla:
The undersigned counsel submit this letter on behalf of all Defendants in this action. We
respectfully submit this letter pursuant to Rule 9.B. of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice
in Civil Cases. Specifically, and as described below, we request permission to redact and file
under seal the invoices of Defendants’ respective counsel, which will be attached to Defendants’
respective forthcoming motions for attorneys’ fees and costs.
We intend to demonstrate the reasonableness of our respective fee applications by
submitting copies of attorney time-entries for which we are seeking reimbursement, in
accordance with the Court’s Order of October 11. These entries appear on monthly invoices
covering all attorney time entries for a particular month. As will be explained in our forthcoming
motions, we are not seeking reimbursement for all such time entries. Accordingly, we
respectfully request permission to redact from our submission any time entries for which we are
not seeking reimbursement. With respect to entries for which Defendants are seeking
reimbursement, we further intend to redact any information that may be protected from
disclosure under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine, and request
permission from the Court to proceed in this manner.
In addition, Defendants request approval to file the redacted invoices in their respective
submissions under seal because the invoices contain certain sensitive and confidential
information relating to Defendants’ attorneys’ work on this case. While there is a general
presumption of public access to judicial records, “the weight to be given the presumption of
access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial
power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.”
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995). As cited below, courts often
permit counsel to submit invoices in support of fee applications under seal.
To be clear, Defendants will include in their publicly filed submissions the key, nonprivileged information that we believe is most relevant to the Court’s inquiry into the
reasonableness of the fee application—i.e. counsel’s respective hourly rates and the aggregate
fees traceable to legal services associated with Plaintiff’s fabrication and spoliation of evidence.
However, Defendants request permission to submit their respective invoices under seal in the
above manner, given their sensitive and confidential nature. This relief is routinely granted in

this district. See, e.g., Cassese v. Williams, 503 F. App'x 55, 58 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming
district court’s decision not to disclose attorney time records that were filed under seal); de la
Fuente v. DCI Telecommunications, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 2d 229, 231 n.3 (S.D.N.Y.)
(acknowledging that attorneys’ fee submission were filed under seal); Gemini Ins. Co. v. Titan
Constr. Servs., LLC, No. 17-CV-8963, 2019 WL 5887301, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019)
(same). Moreover, we submit that a sealing order is all the more necessary given Plaintiff’s
conduct in this litigation, in which he has routinely made false and unfounded public
accusations associated with this case, including about one member of the defense team. See
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (noting that courts have the
power to insure that their records are not “used to gratify private spite or promote public
scandal”). We intend to provide Plaintiff with copies of whatever redacted records we submit to
the Court under seal, provided that Plaintiff abides by the Court’s sealing order.
We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.

Dated: New York, New York
November 25, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
By:

s/ Christopher LaVigne
Stephen Fishbein
Christopher LaVigne
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 646-848-4424/4432
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Viacom Inc., Viacom International Inc., and
Paramount Pictures Corporation

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
By:

s/ Stanton L. Stein
Stanton L. Stein
Diana A. Sanders
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Brian Graden and
Brian Graden Media, LLC

2

LOEB & LOEB LLP
By:

s/ Wook Hwang
Wook Hwang
Sarah Schacter
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154-1895
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Brad Grey, Brad
Grey Estate, and Brad Alan Grey Trust

Application GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2019
New York, New York
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3