China AI Capital Limited v. DLA Piper LLP

Background

Defendants DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn Schechtman submitted a letter motion seeking permission to file under seal, with limited redactions, portions of Exhibit A to a supplemental declaration supporting defendants’ application for fees and costs. The exhibit contained additional fees incurred after defendants’ earlier submission and detailed descriptions of legal work performed by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Defendants proposed filing publicly a version that redacted the narrative descriptions of legal work but left other information, including timekeepers, hours billed, and amounts billed, unredacted. They also proposed filing under seal a version with more limited redactions that would be provided to the plaintiff.

Court’s Analysis

The court weighed the public’s common-law right to access judicial documents against competing privacy and confidentiality interests. It accepted that the narrative billing entries described legal services, conversations, conferences, and the nature of the work performed. The court treated those descriptions as protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The requested redactions did not include billing rates or billed amounts.

Ruling

The motion to seal was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to permanently seal Exhibit A at ECF No. 91 and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 87. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.