Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ramirez v. Marriott, Judge Halpern granted in part and denied in part a request to seal a retainer agreement and redact billing records.
Humberto Ramirez, the putative class and collective members, their counsel, and Marriott International, Inc.; the order directly governed the filing and disclosure of the plaintiff’s retainer agreement and counsel’s billing detail.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc., the plaintiff asked to keep the entire retainer agreement with his lawyers under seal and to redact privileged information from detailed billing records. The request arose after the court required more information to evaluate the lawyers’ requested fees for a proposed settlement.
The plaintiff argued that the retainer agreement contained private information, legal advice, litigation strategy, attorney work product, and proprietary language. He also argued that some billing entries described confidential communications and work that the court did not need to see to decide whether the requested fees were reasonable. The defendant did not oppose the request.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part and denied in part the motion. He allowed the plaintiff to redact privileged information from the billing entries as proposed, but denied the request to file the entire retainer agreement under seal. The court said the plaintiff could separately apply to redact privileged litigation-strategy information from that agreement under the court’s rules.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-02397
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
The parties had previously submitted a joint request for approval of a proposed settlement. The court denied that request without prejudice on September 8, 2022, and directed the plaintiff’s counsel to supplement the attorneys’ fee application with the retainer agreement and detailed time entries for each lawyer or other timekeeper who worked on the case.
The plaintiff then filed an unopposed letter motion asking for permission to file the retainer agreement under seal, for the judge’s eyes only, and to redact privileged information from the billing detail. The defendant did not oppose the motion.
Retainer Agreement
The plaintiff argued that the retainer agreement contained sensitive personal information, attorney work product, proprietary language, and attorney-client communications. The plaintiff also argued that the agreement had little relevance to the public’s evaluation of the court’s approval of the settlement and that disclosure could reveal counsel’s litigation strategy and impose a competitive disadvantage on counsel.
The court denied the request to file the entire retainer agreement under seal. It explained that agreements containing fee and other client information generally are not treated as privileged without special circumstances. The court did not find that the entire agreement qualified for sealing on the showing made in the application. The court stated that, if the plaintiff sought to redact privileged information concerning litigation strategy, the plaintiff could submit an application to do so under the Southern District of New York’s Local Rules and the judge’s Individual Practices.
Billing Detail
The plaintiff proposed redacting the privileged subject matter of certain billing entries while leaving the descriptions of the lawyers’ actions intact. Examples included entries describing calls and correspondence with Humberto Ramirez, research concerning New York rules and regulations, and an email to another person, with the subject matter redacted.
The court granted in part the application and allowed the plaintiff to redact privileged information from counsel’s billing entries as proposed in Doc. 137-2. The court’s order states that the redactions could leave enough information for the court to assess whether the proposed fees were reasonable in light of the work performed.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part and denied in part the motion. The billing-detail redactions were allowed, while the request to seal the entirety of the retainer agreement was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 136.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.