Johnson v. Queen's Nail Art, Inc.

Background

Defendants Queen’s Nail Art, Inc. and Seung Ae Choi submitted a letter asking the court to continue redacting part of the court’s January 17, 2025 Opinion and Order. The requested redaction concerned pages 10 and 11 of that earlier order. The letter stated that the underlying sealed filing, docketed as Document 28, was a declaration by Seung Ae Choi submitted in support of defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, Ryan Choi, Esq. The court had denied that disqualification motion.

Defendants’ Position

Defendants said the declaration described a conversation between Seung Ae Choi and Jia Choi, a paralegal at plaintiffs’ counsel’s office. They argued that the information was privileged and could be prejudicial, including because it might reveal information about Seung Ae Choi’s handling of litigation matters or settlement position. They also argued that the redacted material might be used to impeach her. Defendants characterized the redaction as limited to three paragraphs quoting or paraphrasing communications submitted for the court’s private review.

Ruling

The court granted defendants’ request to keep the specified portion of the January 17 order redacted on the public docket. The order relied on the attorney-client privilege and concluded that the redacted material involved communications protected by that privilege. The court also ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint letter proposing next steps in the action by the deadline stated in the order. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion at Document 33. This was an ancillary order about public access to court records and did not decide the underlying claims in the action.