Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Jan. 22, 2020

Witchko v. Schorsch

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:15-cv-06043
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Witchko v. Schorsch, Judge Hellerstein received a filing about sealing billing records, but the provided text contains no court ruling.

Who this affects

The filing concerns American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., derivative counsel, the defendants, and public access to the letter and billing records discussed in the case.

What happened

In Witchko v. Schorsch, American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. filed a document concerning whether a letter discussing derivative counsel’s billing records should be filed under seal.

The filing says the records had previously been filed under seal and argues that most billing entries are not privileged. It also argues that any privilege was waived when the records were provided to opposing parties.

The provided text does not show a ruling by Judge Hellerstein. It is a party filing that asks the court to deny sealing, so no motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved in the text provided.

The detailed version

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

Case
Witchko v. Schorsch · No. 1:15-cv-06043
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Jan. 22, 2020

Document and posture

The provided document is styled as American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.’s notice and motion for leave to file under seal a January 17, 2020 letter concerning derivative counsel’s billing records. The case was consolidated with No. 1:15-cv-08563-AKH. The document identifies American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., now known as VEREIT, Inc., as the nominal defendant.

The filing’s text is internally unusual: although its title describes a motion to file material under seal, the body states that the company does not believe sealing is appropriate and requests that the motion to seal be denied. The text therefore appears to present the company’s position opposing continued sealing of the letter and billing records.

Arguments in the filing

The company argues that judicial documents are presumed to be publicly accessible and that sealing requires a showing that disclosure is essential to protect a higher value and that the requested restriction is narrowly tailored.

The filing states that derivative counsel’s 474 pages of billing records do not satisfy that standard. It argues that many billing entries merely describe tasks performed by counsel and do not disclose attorney work product or confidential communications. It also argues that derivative counsel did not justify sealing all 474 pages, even if some entries were privileged.

The filing further argues that any attorney-client privilege was waived because derivative counsel provided the billing records to defendants in the action, whom the filing describes as adversaries.

What the provided text decides

The provided text contains no signed judicial opinion or order and does not state that Judge Alvin Hellerstein granted, denied, or otherwise decided the motion. Accordingly, it records arguments made in a party filing rather than a court holding or disposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.