State Of New York v. Egon Zehnder International, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In State of New York v. Egon Zehnder International, Judge Liman denied the motion to strike as moot and granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal.
The State of New York, Egon Zehnder International, Inc., the other defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. Some documents were ordered unsealed, while specified material could remain sealed.
What happened
In State of New York v. Egon Zehnder International, the defendants asked the court to remove a paragraph from the amended complaint, claiming it contained accidentally disclosed attorney-client communications, and to prevent further references to it. The defendants also asked to keep a supporting declaration and exhibits under seal.
The court declined to decide whether the material was privileged or whether any privilege had been waived. Because the parties had settled, the complaint had been publicly available for more than a year, and the case was nearing its end, the court denied the motion to strike as moot. The court found that public access to the sealed filings was entitled to relatively little weight, but that confidentiality interests justified keeping some materials sealed.
Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal. Several filings had to be unsealed, while Dkt. No. 19-2 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the declaration could remain sealed. The defendants were directed to refile the declaration and exhibits with only the permitted redactions.
The detailed version
- State Of New York v. Egon Zehnder International, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06883
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike a paragraph from the amended complaint. They argued that the paragraph contained material protected by the attorney-client privilege that had been disclosed inadvertently, and that the court should bar references to the material in later proceedings. They also filed a motion to seal a declaration and exhibits submitted in support of the motion to strike.
The court explained that Rule 12(f) allows a court to remove from a pleading matter that is insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Motions to strike are generally disfavored, but courts may use them to prevent disclosure of privileged material. Here, the amended complaint had been publicly available in unredacted form for more than a year. The court also noted that it had approved a settlement agreement resolving the matter and that the case was coming to a close.
Motion to Strike
The court did not decide the merits of the motion to strike, including whether the defendants had waived the attorney-client privilege or whether the material could be used in the future. Because of the settlement and the circumstances of the case, the court denied the motion to strike as moot. The court stated that this ruling did not express a view on whether the privilege had been waived.
Motion to Seal
The court treated the declaration and exhibits as judicial documents, meaning documents filed with the court that carry a presumption of public access. It found that the presumption was low because the materials did not address the merits of the case, resembled filings connected to discovery or trial-preparation issues, overlapped substantially with information in unsealed filings, and would not play a role in the court’s exercise of judicial power after the settlement.
The court nevertheless found that confidentiality interests outweighed the low presumption of access for some documents. The materials generally appeared to contain communications between attorneys and clients and were intended to remain confidential. The court ordered unsealed Dkt. No. 19, except for paragraphs 3 and 4; Dkt. Nos. 19-1, 19-3, and 19-4. Dkt. No. 19-2 could remain sealed, as could paragraphs 3 and 4 of the declaration. The defendants were directed to refile the declaration and exhibits with only the redactions allowed by the order.
Disposition
The motion to strike was DENIED as moot. The motion to seal was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The clerk was directed to close Dkt. Nos. 16 and 17.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.