MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V.
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-05860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In MN Theaters v. Grupo Cinemex, Judge Castel denied wholesale sealing but allowed provisional privilege-based redactions.
MN Theaters 2006 LLC, Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V., and the public’s access to the billing records and other materials filed in the case.
What happened
MN Theaters 2006 LLC asked to file billing records and other materials under seal in support of its motion to recover enforcement costs in MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V.
The plaintiff said the records contained descriptions of legal work, privileged attorney-client communications, protected attorney work product, and sensitive tax and banking information. It asked to redact some entries and an email so the defendant and the public could not see them.
Judge P. Castel denied wholesale sealing of the billing records because the cited reasons did not overcome the public’s presumptive right to access court filings. He allowed the plaintiff to provisionally redact privilege or work-product material, send the court an unredacted version, and submit an explanation by March 18, 2021.
The detailed version
- MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V. · No. 1:20-cv-05860
- P. Castel
- Mar. 11, 2021
Background
MN Theaters 2006 LLC submitted a letter-motion asking for permission to file under seal or with redactions materials supporting its motion to recover enforcement costs. The requested materials included Milbank billing records and time entries, exhibits to the declaration of Jed M. Schwartz, and the first page of Exhibit N to the declaration of Joseph Kammerman.
The plaintiff argued that the billing records described legal work and that some entries contained information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. It also identified sensitive tax and banking information. The attorney-client privilege generally protects certain confidential communications between a client and lawyer; work-product protection generally covers certain materials prepared for litigation. The plaintiff stated that only several dozen of more than 800 time entries, along with one entry by Mr. Lopez and an email, contained privileged or protected information.
Court’s Ruling
The court denied the wholesale filing of billing records and time entries under seal. It stated that nothing cited or described by the plaintiff overcame the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible.
The court permitted the plaintiff to provisionally redact material covered by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The plaintiff was directed to send the judge’s chambers an unredacted version showing the redacted portions, together with a submission explaining the redactions, by March 18, 2021. The order also states that redactions of tax and banking information authorized by the federal filing rules could be made without another application to the court.
Judge P. Castel’s order addressed the sealing and redaction request. The opinion text does not state a ruling on the underlying motion to recover enforcement costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.