Carrington v. Graden
- Katherine Failla
- 1:18-cv-04609
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rovier Carrington v. Brian Graden, Judge Failla granted defendants’ request to redact and seal attorney invoices for forthcoming fee applications.
The defendants—Viacom Inc., Viacom International Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Brian Graden, Brian Graden Media, LLC, Brad Grey, Brad Grey Estate, and Brad Alan Grey Trust—were permitted to redact and file their attorneys’ invoices under seal.
What happened
In Rovier Carrington v. Brian Graden, the defendants asked to redact portions of their lawyers’ monthly invoices before filing them in support of future requests for attorney fees and costs.
The defendants sought to remove time entries for which they were not requesting payment, as well as information they said was protected by attorney-client confidentiality or the work-product protection. They also asked to file the redacted invoices privately because they contained sensitive information about defense counsel’s work.
The court granted the application. Judge Katherine Polk Failla therefore allowed the defendants to redact and privately file the invoices as requested; the order did not decide the amount or reasonableness of any future fee award.
The detailed version
- Carrington v. Graden · No. 1:18-cv-04609
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 26, 2019
Background
Counsel for all defendants asked the court for permission to redact and file under seal their lawyers’ invoices, which they planned to attach to forthcoming motions for attorney fees and costs. The defendants said the invoices contained all monthly time entries, including entries for which they were not seeking reimbursement.
Requested Redactions and Sealing
The defendants requested permission to redact time entries unrelated to the amounts they would seek and information they said was protected by the attorney-client privilege, which protects certain confidential communications between lawyers and clients, or the work-product doctrine, which protects certain materials prepared for litigation. They also asked to file the redacted invoices under seal because they contained sensitive and confidential information concerning defense counsel’s work.
The defendants stated that their public filings would include the hourly rates and total fees attributable to legal work associated with the plaintiff’s alleged fabrication and destruction of evidence. They also stated that they intended to provide the plaintiff copies of the redacted records filed under seal, subject to compliance with the court’s sealing order.
Ruling
The court endorsed the application with the order: “Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.” Judge Katherine Polk Failla therefore granted the defendants’ request to redact and file the invoices under seal. The opinion does not rule on the defendants’ forthcoming fee applications or determine any fee amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.