In re: 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties
- Loretta Preska
- 1:08-cv-10934
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In In re: 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties, Judge Preska granted counsel’s request to file an unredacted withdrawal motion under seal for court-only review.
Moving counsel and the claimants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company were affected by the sealing order; access to the unredacted motion was limited to moving counsel and the court.
What happened
In In re: 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties, counsel for the Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company asked to file an unredacted motion to withdraw under seal. The redacted information concerned unpaid legal fees.
Counsel argued that the fee-dispute details were confidential and not relevant to the opposing parties. Counsel requested that only the moving lawyers and the court receive the unredacted motion.
Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the request to file the unredacted withdrawal motion under seal for the court’s review.
The detailed version
- In re: 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties · No. 1:08-cv-10934
- Loretta Preska
- Aug. 21, 2020
Background
Counsel for claimants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company asked the court for permission to file an unredacted copy of their motion to withdraw as counsel under seal. The request concerned information about unpaid legal fees incurred during the litigation and the claimants’ lack of access to rental income from the building at 650 Fifth Avenue.
Request and reasoning
Counsel argued that the redacted fee information was confidential and implicated the attorney-client relationship. Counsel also argued that the Government, the Iran Creditors, and the Levin Plaintiffs had no legitimate interest in learning the details of the fee dispute. The requested filing arrangement would limit access to the unredacted motion to the moving counsel and the court.
Ruling
Judge Loretta A. Preska granted counsel’s request to file the unredacted motion to withdraw under seal for the court’s review. The opinion text does not report a ruling on the underlying litigation, the withdrawal motion itself, or the amount of the unpaid fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.