Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-06158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov v. Village of Pomona, Judge Karas granted the Village’s request to file redacted billing records under seal.
The Village of Pomona and its Board of Trustees, whose attorney billing records were permitted to be filed in redacted form under seal.
What happened
In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, the Village and its Board of Trustees asked to file a redacted version of attorney billing records supporting a motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
The Village said the redacted descriptions contained confidential attorney-client communications and attorney work product, including litigation strategy and descriptions of services. It filed the unredacted records under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted.
Judge Kenneth Karas granted the Village’s request to file the exhibit in redacted form under seal. The ruling addressed the filing and redactions, not whether the Village was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY · No. 7:20-cv-06158
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 15, 2022
Background
The Village of Pomona and its Board of Trustees, referred to together as the “Village,” asked permission to file Exhibit A to a declaration supporting the Village’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in redacted form. The exhibit consisted of attorney billing records.
The Request
The Village stated that it had redacted descriptions of legal work that it considered protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. It said the billing narratives described litigation strategy, communications with clients, and the details of services provided. The Village electronically filed an unredacted copy under seal, with the proposed redactions highlighted, and requested permission under Rule 9.A of the court’s individual rules.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the request. The text provided does not state that the court separately decided the Village’s entitlement to attorney’s fees or costs; it granted permission to file the billing-record exhibit in redacted form under seal.
Effect
The ruling affected the Village’s filing of its attorney billing records in this case. The opinion text does not identify any further conditions on the redactions or any separate ruling on the underlying fee motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.