noting that courts have the power to insure that their records are not “used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal”
How later courts described this case
- noting that courts have the power to insure that their records are not “used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal”
- affirming district court’s decision not to disclose attorney time records that were filed under seal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
New +Y1o.r2k1, 2N.8Y4 180.4002020-6069
D: 212.848.4424 sfishbein@shearman.com
D: 212.848.4432 christopher.lavigne@shearman.com
November 25, 2019
BY ECF AND EMAIL
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla MEMO ENDORSED
United States District Judge
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: 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, non-
privileged 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 Respectfully submitted,
November 25, 2019
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
By: s/ Christopher LaVigne
Stephen Fishbein
Christopher LaVigne
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: 212-848-4424/4432
Facsimile: 646-848-4424/4432
sfishbein@shearman.com
christopher.lavigne@shearman.com
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: (310) 826-7474
Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
lstein@raklaw.com
dsanders@raklaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants Brian Graden and
Brian Graden Media, LLC
LOEB & LOEB LLP
By: s/_ Wook Hwang
Wook Hwang
Sarah Schacter
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154-1895
Telephone: (212) 407-4000
whwang@loeb.com
sschacter@loeb.com
Attorneys for Defendants Brad Grey, Brad
Grey Estate, and Brad Alan Grey Trust
Application GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2019 5 7
New York, New York Kathe alu. filo
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE