Hamilton v. Brite Advisors USA, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-00085
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hamilton v. Brite Advisors USA, Judge Engelmayer sealed Exhibit C, denied sealing Exhibit D, and ordered Exhibits A, B, and D publicly filed.
Bradley Hamilton and Brite Advisors USA, Inc.; the ruling keeps Exhibit C sealed but requires Exhibits A, B, and D to be publicly filed.
What happened
In Hamilton v. Brite Advisors USA, Inc., Bradley Hamilton asked to file two exhibits under seal. Exhibit C contained invoices for legal work in a separate Securities and Exchange Commission case, while Exhibit D contained invoices for legal work in this case.
Hamilton argued that the exhibits were covered by a confidentiality agreement and that Exhibit C could reveal his defense strategy in the SEC case. He also argued that sealing the exhibits was limited and would still leave the rest of the proceeding publicly accessible. Brite Advisors USA, Inc. did not object to the request.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted sealing for Exhibit C but denied sealing for Exhibit D. He ordered Hamilton to file Exhibits A, B, and D publicly by February 20, 2020, because Exhibit D was relevant to this case and its brief time entries did not reveal defense strategy.
The detailed version
- Hamilton v. Brite Advisors USA, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00085
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 19, 2020
Background
Bradley Hamilton, the petitioner, asked to file Exhibits C and D under seal for the court's private review. Exhibit C consisted of invoices dated January 16, 2020, and February 14, 2020, showing attorneys' fees and costs for work in a separate Securities and Exchange Commission case involving Benjamin Alderson and Hamilton. Exhibit D consisted of invoices dated February 3, 2020, and February 14, 2020, showing attorneys' fees and costs in an arbitration involving Hamilton and deVere USA, Inc.
The request arose in Hamilton's case against Brite Advisors USA, Inc., formerly known as deVere USA, Inc. The letter states that the case concerned confirmation of interim arbitration awards under 9 U.S.C. § 9 and enforcement of the parties' settlement agreement.
Arguments
Hamilton argued that both exhibits were covered by the parties' confidentiality agreement, which was incorporated into their settlement agreement. He also argued that publicly filing Exhibit C would reveal his counsel's defense strategy in the SEC case and could disadvantage him in that case and the present case. Hamilton maintained that sealing only Exhibits C and D was narrowly limited because his reply memorandum and remaining exhibits would be filed publicly. Brite Advisors did not object to the requested relief.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request to file Exhibit C under seal because it documented legal work connected to the SEC case and implicated Hamilton's legitimate interest in keeping his defense strategy confidential.
The court denied the request to file Exhibit D under seal. It reasoned that Exhibit D reflected legal fees incurred in the present case, making it relevant to this action, and that it posed little risk of revealing defense strategies in the SEC case. The court also stated that the time entries were sparsely worded and did not reveal counsel's strategy. Although the exhibits might be covered by the parties' confidentiality agreement, the court stated that it was not bound by that agreement.
The court ordered Hamilton to file Exhibits A, B, and D on the public docket by February 20, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.