Witchko v. Schorsch
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:15-cv-06043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Witchko v. Schorsch, derivative plaintiffs asked to seal billing records; Judge Hellerstein’s supplied materials do not show a ruling.
The derivative plaintiffs and their counsel, the other parties who were to receive the records, and the public because the motion sought to restrict public access to counsel’s billing and expense records.
What happened
Witchko v. Schorsch concerns a motion by derivative plaintiffs to file certain billing and expense records under seal. The records relate to plaintiffs’ lawyers and support motions seeking approval of a derivative settlement and an award of fees and expenses.
The plaintiffs argued that the records were protected by attorney-client privilege and could reveal confidential communications, litigation strategy, factual investigation, and legal work. They said they submitted the records to the court and provided them to the other parties under a protective order.
The supplied materials do not include a ruling on the motion. Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s action on the request is therefore unclear from this document.
The detailed version
- Witchko v. Schorsch · No. 1:15-cv-06043
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Jan. 14, 2020
Nature of the Document
This document is a notice of motion and motion for leave to file documents under seal, not an order deciding the motion. The document is filed in the consolidated litigation involving Joanne Witchko, acting derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., and Nicholas S. Schorsch and other defendants.
The Request
The derivative plaintiffs ask for permission to file Exhibits E-DD to a supplemental declaration supporting derivative counsel’s motions for final approval of a derivative settlement and for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses. The exhibits are described as billing and expense records for plaintiffs’ derivative counsel.
Arguments Presented
The derivative counsel state that the billing records are subject to attorney-client privilege and should not be publicly disclosed. The motion cites New York authorities for the proposition that detailed attorney bills can reveal privileged communications, discovery and trial strategy, factual investigation, and legal work performed for a client.
The motion also states that the plaintiffs designated the exhibits as privileged and confidential under the protective order and the court’s individual rule. At the same time, the plaintiffs said they were submitting copies to the court and serving copies on the other parties.
Disposition
The supplied text does not state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise decided the request to file the exhibits under seal. Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s ruling is not included in this document.
Date Note
The supplied case metadata gives a filing date of January 14, 2020, while the document itself is dated January 10, 2020 and bears a docket filing notation for January 10, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.