Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 28, 2024

42 West LLC v. Gould

Judge
Ona Wang
Docket
1:21-cv-01581
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In 42 West LLC v. Gould, Judge Wang denied 42 West’s motion to seal counsel’s billing rates in the default-judgment opinion.

Who this affects

42 West LLC and its counsel, whose requested billing-rate redactions were denied; the requested references were not sealed under this order.

What happened

In 42 West LLC v. Gould, 42 West LLC asked the court to redact two references to the hourly rates of attorneys and staff at its law firm from an opinion entering default judgment.

42 West argued that the rates were competitively sensitive, had previously been kept from public view, and were not important to the court’s ruling.

Judge Wang denied the motion, explaining that courts regularly discuss billing rates in public records when deciding awards of attorney fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
42 West LLC v. Gould · No. 1:21-cv-01581
Judge
Ona Wang
Date
Oct. 28, 2024

Background

42 West LLC moved to partially seal the court’s opinion and order entering default judgment. It sought to redact only two references to the hourly billing rates for attorneys and staff members at Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, the law firm representing 42 West.

42 West argued that the billing rates were competitively sensitive, had not previously been available to the public on the court’s electronic docket, and were not particularly important to the court’s ruling. The motion relied on the presumption of public access to judicial documents and argued that the privacy interests connected to the firm’s billing rates outweighed the public’s interest in seeing them.

Ruling

The court denied 42 West LLC’s motion to seal. Judge Ona T. Wang stated that courts regularly discuss billing rates in the public record when determining awards of attorney fees and cited several decisions from the Southern District of New York. The order therefore did not grant the requested redactions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.