Moshell v. Sasol Limited
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Moshell v. Sasol Limited, Judge Cronan granted sealing requests for confidential-witness identities and attorney work product, while addressing Exhibit 16 separately.
The plaintiffs, defendants, confidential witnesses, their counsel and investigators, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed materials.
What happened
In Moshell v. Sasol Limited, the parties asked the court to keep certain exhibits and transcripts from being publicly disclosed. The defendants sought to redact information identifying confidential witnesses, while the plaintiffs sought to seal materials reflecting their lawyers’ and private investigator’s thoughts, strategies, and opinions.
The court granted the defendants’ request for exhibits and transcripts revealing confidential-witness identities, and granted the plaintiffs’ request for Exhibits 7–15 and 17–29. The court found that the witnesses’ privacy interests and the plaintiffs’ interests in protecting confidential work product outweighed the public’s general right to access the information.
Judge Cronan left Exhibit 16 unresolved and directed the plaintiff to explain by January 13, 2021, whether it should also be sealed; defendants could respond. The court also allowed defendants to respond by January 11, 2021, to the plaintiffs’ request concerning future designations of attorney work product, and directed the clerk to close the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Moshell v. Sasol Limited · No. 1:20-cv-01008
- John Cronan
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs supported keeping certain documents under seal after defendants provisionally filed them under seal in connection with a supplemental memorandum concerning defendants’ motions for reconsideration and sanctions. The documents had been produced after the court ordered production of materials concerning what confidential witnesses told plaintiffs, how those communications occurred, and how the information was used in the complaint.
The plaintiffs described Exhibits 7–15 and 17–29 as including interview notes, investigator memoranda, and communications involving attorneys and private investigators. According to the plaintiffs, these materials reflected legal strategies, opinions, conclusions, and mental impressions, and therefore were protected by the attorney work product doctrine. The plaintiffs also said the materials contained proprietary information about the firms’ investigation methods. The plaintiffs did not oppose defendants’ request to redact confidential-witness names and job descriptions in other exhibits.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ request as to exhibits and transcripts revealing confidential-witness identities, identified as Exhibits 1–6 and 30–33. The court found that the confidential witnesses’ privacy interests outweighed the presumption that the public may access the information in the limited proposed redactions.
The court also granted the plaintiffs’ request as to Exhibits 7–15 and 17–29. These exhibits reflected the mental impressions, strategy, and opinions of plaintiffs’ counsel and private investigator. The court found that the plaintiffs’ interests in limiting dissemination of confidential material outweighed the presumption of public access to the proposed sealed documents.
The plaintiffs had not asked to seal Exhibit 16. The court directed the plaintiff to file a letter by January 13, 2021, explaining whether the plaintiff sought to seal that exhibit on the same grounds. Defendants could, but were not required to, submit their views on Exhibit 16 by the same date. The court also allowed defendants to respond by January 11, 2021, to the plaintiffs’ request that documents designated in good faith as attorney work product be treated as confidential under the confidentiality and protective order. The clerk was directed to close the motion pending at Docket No. 113.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.