China AI Capital Limited v. DLA Piper LLP (US) et al
Filing
92
ORDER granting 87 Letter Motion to Seal.The motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to permanently seal Exhibit A at ECF No. 91. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 87. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on 10/23/2024) (jca)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Tel 212.351.4000
gibsondunn.com
Nancy Hart
Direct: 212.351.3897
nhart@gibsondunn.com
October 22, 2024
VIA ECF
The Honorable Valerie Figueredo
United States Magistrate Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:
China AI Capital Limited v. DLA Piper LLP (US), et al., No. 1:21-cv-10911
Dear Judge Figueredo:
In accordance with Section I.g.2. of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases and the Southern
District of New York’s ECF Rules & Instructions, Section 6, Defendants DLA Piper LLP (US) and
Caryn Schechtman (“DLA” or “Defendants”) respectfully submit this letter motion requesting leave
to file under seal and with limited redactions portions of Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of
Nancy Hart in further Support of Defendants’ Application for Fees and Costs (“Exhibit A”).
Pursuant to this Court’s order of July 18, 2024, Defendants filed on September 3, 2024 their opening
“briefing on the amount of the sanctions award” ordered by the District Court on March 6, 2024. ECF
74; see ECF 78. In connection with that opening brief, Defendants sought leave to file a compilation
of the time entries underlying Defendants’ fee request under seal and with limited redactions to the
detailed narrative descriptions of legal work performed on this matter by their counsel at Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher LLP (“Gibson Dunn”). See ECF 77. The basis for the request was that those descriptions
reflected confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product
doctrine. Id. The Court granted Defendants’ request on September 5, 2024. ECF 81.
The basis for Defendants’ request with respect to Exhibit A is the same, as Exhibit A reflects additional
fees incurred by Defendants since those accounted for in the opening brief, and it contains similar
detailed narrative descriptions that reveal confidential information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and the work product doctrine. As they did in connection with the opening briefing, and with
this Court’s permission, Defendants will (i) publicly file a version of Exhibit A that redacts all narrative
descriptions of Gibson Dunn’s legal work (but with other information, such as timekeeper, hours billed,
and amount billed, unredacted); and (ii) file under seal a version of Exhibit A with limited redactions
Abu Dhabi Beijing Brussels Century City Dallas Denver Dubai Frankfurt Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles
Munich New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris San Francisco Singapore Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Valerie Figueredo
Page 2
of material protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine that will also be
provided to Plaintiff. 1
In deciding a motion to seal, this Court must balance the “common law right of access to judicial
documents” against competing considerations, including “the privacy interests of those resisting
disclosure.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). “Courts in
this circuit have often found privilege to be a compelling reason to overcome the presumption of
access.” Altana Credit, 2023 WL 7924626, at *1–2; see Flatiron Acquisition Vehicle, LLC v. CSE
Mortgage LLC, 2021 WL 4481853, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29 2021) (collecting cases that have “found
privilege to be a compelling reason to overcome the presumption of access”). Accordingly, this Court
has on numerous occasions granted motions to seal billing records submitted in support of applications
for fees and costs. See Altana Credit, 2023 WL 7924626, at *1–2 (granting motion to seal “narrative
descriptions of … billing records” filed in support of an award of fees and expenses); Ottoson v. SMBC
Leasing and Fin., Inc., 2021 WL 839437, at *3 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2021) (granting motion to seal
attorney billing records filed in support of an application for fees and costs); Seaport Glob. Holdings
LLC v. Petaquilla Minerals Ltd., 2020 WL 3428151, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020) (granting
motion to seal attorney billing records filed in support of an application for fees and costs).2
Here, Exhibit A reflects time records and billing statements that are “detailed in showing services,
conversations, and conferences between counsel and others” and would disclose “the legal work that
has been done by [Gibson Dunn].” Flatiron Acquisition, 2021 WL 4481853, at *2. Those statements
are thus privileged. Id. (granting request to seal with respect to narrative entries in billing records, but
not billing rates or billed amounts); see also Bretillot v. Burrow, 2015 WL 5306224, at *25
(S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015) (“We also readily accept … that attorney-client privilege protects
1
If necessary and at this Court’s request, Defendants will provide to this Court a fully unredacted
version of Exhibit A for in camera inspection. See, e.g., Peerless Network, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.,
2024 WL 20840, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2024) (“The Court has reviewed in camera the unredacted billing
records for AT&T … [which] include sufficient information to permit the Court to assess the
reasonableness of the work performed.”); Altana Credit Opportunities Fund SPC v. Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, 2023 WL 7924626, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2023) (granting motion to seal
and file attorney billing records with redactions after the moving party provided unredacted records
for in camera review); PNC Bank, N.A. v Dana Transp., Inc., 2023 WL 5702165, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 5, 2023) (“In an abundance of caution, and because some of the entries provided more limited
information as redacted, the Court requested and reviewed the unredacted portions of the billing
records to review in camera. This review confirms that the topics for the research and discussions were
relevant to this dispute, and that most of the time expended was reasonable”). In doing so, and by
making this filing, Defendants do not intend to waive any applicable privilege or protection with
respect to the information in Exhibit A, all of which is expressly reserved.
2
Where, as here, the materials to be sealed are not being introduced at a trial or filed in support of a
dispositive motion, “the presumption of public access that attaches … is lower.” Richards v. Kallish,
2023 WL 7126311, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2023) (granting motions to seal exhibits reflecting
attorney’s fees and costs filed in support of requests for sanctions).
The Honorable Valerie Figueredo
Page 3
petitioner’s billing records and his memorandum in support of his fee application …. [T]ime
records which also reveal … the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching
particular areas of the law, fall within the privilege.”). The limited proposed redaction of that
information—Defendants do not seek for example to redact non-privileged information about Gibson
Dunn’s billing rates or billed amounts, see, e.g., Altana Credit, 2023 WL 7924626, at *1–2—are
narrowly targeted to preserve that privilege, as well as applicable work product protection.
Accordingly, DLA respectfully asks that this Court grant leave (i) to file publicly a version of Exhibit
A that redacts all narrative descriptions of Gibson Dunn’s legal work; and (ii) to file under seal a
version of Exhibit A with more limited redactions, which will be provided to Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nancy E. Hart
Nancy E. Hart
cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)
Dated: 10/23/24
The motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to permanently seal Exhibit A at ECF No.
91.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF
No. 87.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?