Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke

Background

The court had consolidated the two related actions for pretrial purposes. In a joint status update, the plaintiffs reported that Defendant Sherry Sims had not produced all of her text-message communications with Defendant Alan J. Hanke and had redacted other communications based on her own view of what was relevant. The plaintiffs asked the court to compel immediate production of all of Sims’s unredacted text messages with Hanke.

Sims responded that she had produced all requested documents and that the withheld messages had nothing to do with the case or were unlikely to lead to discoverable information. She also said the redacted information was sensitive and proposed that the court privately review the messages to decide whether production was required. The court granted that request and reviewed the messages in unredacted form. Sims proposed redactions of 259 messages solely on relevance grounds.

Legal Standard

The court explained that the weight of authority in the Southern District of New York generally does not allow a party to redact information from responsive and relevant documents based on the party’s unilateral relevance determinations. Redactions are generally impermissible unless supported by a legal privilege. Redactions based on privacy or business sensitivity may be allowed in some circumstances if the party shows “good cause,” meaning a specific factual basis for protection from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party seeking protection bears that burden.

Analysis

The court found that Sims had not shown good cause. She did not argue that the redactions were needed to protect her from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, and the court found no such apparent risk in the messages. The messages also were not communications with Sims’s counsel, so the court found no basis for attorney-client or work-product protection.

The court rejected Sims’s argument that the messages could be withheld because they were irrelevant. It reasoned that a message that seems irrelevant by itself may provide context for relevant messages, and that the decision about context could not be left entirely to Sims. The messages were exchanged during the relevant period and involved Sims and Hanke, both named defendants. The court found them relevant at least to the context of other messages, the nature of Sims’s and Hanke’s relationship, their business dealings, and their pattern of conduct.

The court also concluded that Sims’s concerns about sensitive information could be addressed through the protective order in the case. That order allowed documents to be designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only.” The court found those designations sufficient to protect the information, while allowing the parties to propose additional safeguards for the court’s approval.

Order

The court ordered Sims to produce the unredacted text messages between her and Hanke to the plaintiffs in their entirety by June 1, 2022. It also ordered the plaintiffs and Sims to file a joint letter by June 6, 2022, stating whether any discovery disputes remained. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims in either action.