Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-09712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Lonstein Law Office v. Evanston Insurance: Judge Liman ordered limited redactions and public filing of two agreements.
AT&T Services, Inc. was directed to file the two agreements publicly with only limited redactions. The order also affects public access to those agreements and the other parties to the case.
What happened
In Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company, the court considered a request to seal parts of a Retainer Agreement and a Wind-Down Agreement. The opinion does not identify the party that made the request.
The court found the request too broad and insufficient under the applicable sealing standards. It allowed only specified portions to remain redacted, including contingency-fee and investigation-cost information, certain Wind-Down Agreement provisions, and bank-account information. AT&T was directed to file the agreements publicly with only those redactions.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry 54. The order does not expressly state that the motion was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-09712
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 2, 2022
Issue
The court addressed a motion to seal portions of the Retainer Agreement and the Wind-Down Agreement.
Ruling
Judge Liman found that the sealing request was overbroad and did not satisfy the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The court also cited an earlier Southern District of New York decision concerning the need for a narrowly tailored request rather than wholesale sealing of agreements.
The court permitted redaction of only the following material:
- The material under the headings “Contingency Fee” and “Costs of Investigation” in the Retainer Agreement. - The second whereas clause in the Wind-Down Agreement. - The amount of consideration in the Wind-Down Agreement. - The bank-account information on page three of the Wind-Down Agreement.
The court directed AT&T Services, Inc. to file both agreements on the public docket with only those limited redactions. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 54. The opinion does not expressly characterize the motion as granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.