China AI Capital Limited v. DLA Piper LLP
- Victor Marrero
- 1:21-cv-10911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In China AI Capital v. DLA Piper, Judge Figueredo granted defendants’ request to seal privileged billing descriptions and maintain viewing restrictions.
DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn Schechtman may keep the approved portions of their billing exhibit restricted from public viewing, while China AI Capital Limited is to receive the sealed version with limited redactions. The public will see the publicly filed version with the legal-work descriptions redacted.
What happened
In China AI Capital Limited v. DLA Piper LLP (US), DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn Schechtman asked to restrict public access to parts of a billing exhibit supporting their request for fees and costs related to a sanctions award. The exhibit contained descriptions of Gibson Dunn’s legal work.
The defendants proposed publicly filing a version that removed all descriptions of the legal work while leaving timekeepers, hours, and amounts billed visible. They also proposed filing a more complete version under seal for China AI Capital, with limited redactions for attorney-client privileged and protected work-product information.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the sealing request. She directed the Clerk to keep the viewing restrictions on the filing permanently and to terminate the motion docketed as ECF No. 77.
The detailed version
- China AI Capital Limited v. DLA Piper LLP · No. 1:21-cv-10911
- Victor Marrero
- Sept. 5, 2024
Background
DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn Schechtman submitted a letter motion seeking permission to file under seal and with limited redactions portions of Exhibit D to a declaration supporting their application for fees and costs. The exhibit consisted of time entries underlying the defendants’ fee request and included detailed descriptions of legal work performed by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The defendants requested permission to publicly file a version of Exhibit D that redacted all narrative descriptions of Gibson Dunn’s legal work but left other information—such as timekeepers, hours billed, and amounts billed—unredacted. They also asked to file under seal a version with more limited redactions of information they asserted was protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, and to provide that version to China AI Capital. They offered to provide the court with a fully unredacted version for private review if requested.
Court’s Analysis
The court’s endorsement reflects the request’s approval. The letter argued that the legal-work descriptions revealed confidential attorney-client communications and attorney work product. It also relied on the principle that courts balance the public’s common-law right to access judicial documents against competing privacy interests, and that the public-access presumption is lower for materials not introduced at trial or filed in support of a dispositive motion.
The request distinguished between privileged narrative descriptions and non-privileged billing information such as billing rates and amounts. The defendants stated that the proposed redactions were narrowly targeted and did not seek to conceal those billing details from the public.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the sealing request. The Clerk of Court was directed to permanently retain the viewing restrictions on ECF No. 80 and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 77. The opinion text does not state the amount of the requested fees or costs, or the amount of the sanctions award.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.