Lombardo v. Trans Union, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-06813
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lisa Lombardo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Judge Briccetti ordered limited public redactions and required counsel to address fee arbitration.
Lombardo, her counsel, and the parties’ access to the opposition and related fee-arbitration issues.
What happened
In Lisa Lombardo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Lombardo’s counsel asked to seal parts of her opposition to counsel’s motion to withdraw. The request concerned references to settlement discussions, proposed settlement terms, and a dispute over counsel’s fees.
The court said settlement discussions and documents generally are not presumed to be open to the public. It found that some redactions were appropriate, but that references to Lombardo’s fee challenge and request for fee-dispute arbitration had no stated basis for sealing and were repeated elsewhere without redaction.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the request to keep the unredacted opposition under seal, ordered counsel to publicly file a version with all proposed redactions except those concerning paragraph 21, and required counsel to report whether it consented to fee-dispute arbitration and how that could affect pending motions.
The detailed version
- Lombardo v. Trans Union, LLC · No. 7:20-cv-06813
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 4, 2024
Background
In connection with Lombardo’s opposition to her counsel’s motion to withdraw, counsel filed a request to seal portions of the opposition. The proposed redactions included references to settlement discussions and proposed settlement terms, as well as references to Lombardo’s challenge to counsel’s legal fees and her request that counsel participate in fee-dispute arbitration under Part 137 of the New York Supreme Court’s rules.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that judicial documents, including legal memoranda and declarations, are generally presumed to be accessible to the public. It also stated that settlement discussions and settlement documents do not have the same presumptive right of public access. The court found that redactions concerning settlement discussions and proposed settlement terms were appropriate. It found no basis to seal the information about Lombardo’s fee challenge and arbitration request, particularly because that information was largely repeated in an unredacted footnote.
Order
The court granted counsel’s request to file the unredacted opposition under seal and directed the clerk to keep that document restricted to court users and the parties. It instructed counsel to publicly file the opposition with all proposed redactions except the proposed redactions to paragraph 21. The court also ordered counsel, by September 9, 2024, to file a letter stating whether counsel consented to fee-dispute arbitration with Lombardo and, if so, explaining any effect on the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement and motion to withdraw.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.