Knopf v. Esposito

Background

The Dorsey Defendants—Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Nathaniel H. Akerman—asked the court to allow them to redact and file under seal their response to the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order. The defendants said redaction and sealing were appropriate for reasons addressed in earlier court orders.

The filing also contains the defendants’ response opposing the protective-order motion and their cross-motion to compel production of documents responsive to a request for production. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ claims of common-interest privilege and work-product protection did not shield the requested materials. They asked the plaintiffs to produce documents and communications concerning investigations into a January 12, 2016 call and allegations of criminal, civil, or ethical violations.

Ruling

The order states: “The motion to redact is denied.” It further states that the unredacted version of the defendants’ letter was available on the public docket. The text provided does not state that the court ruled on the defendants’ separate request to compel document production.

Classification

This is a procedural order concerning redaction and sealing, rather than a decision on the underlying dispute. The attached letter contains the Dorsey Defendants’ arguments, but those arguments are not themselves the court’s holding.