Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc., Judge Halpern granted Ramirez’s motion to redact litigation-strategy and privileged material from counsel’s retainer agreement.
The plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, because the plaintiff was permitted to redact specified portions of the retainer agreement; the defendant did not oppose the request.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc., the plaintiff asked to file a redacted version of the agreement with counsel that described the representation. The request followed the court’s earlier direction to provide the agreement as part of its review of a proposed settlement and attorneys’ fee request.
The plaintiff sought to redact personal contact information, litigation strategy, attorney work product, and attorney-client communications. The defendant did not oppose the request. The plaintiff argued that the redacted information had little value for public review of the court’s work and could reveal sensitive personal or legal information.
Judge Halpern granted the application. The court allowed the plaintiff to redact the retainer agreement as proposed in Document 143-1 and directed the clerk to terminate the motion pending at Document 141.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-02397
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
The parties had previously filed a joint request for approval of a proposed settlement. The court denied that request without prejudice on September 8, 2022, and directed plaintiff’s counsel to supplement the attorneys’ fee application with the retainer agreement and detailed time entries for each timekeeper.
The plaintiff later filed the retainer agreement and asked to place it under seal. On November 2, 2022, the court granted that application in part. The court denied the request to seal the entire agreement but allowed the plaintiff to seek permission under the court’s rules to redact privileged information concerning litigation strategy.
Arguments for Redaction
The plaintiff requested permission to file a version of the retainer agreement with specified provisions redacted. The plaintiff argued that the redacted material included sensitive personal information, litigation strategy, attorney work product, and attorney-client communications. The plaintiff also argued that the information was only tenuously relevant to the court’s review of the attorneys’ fee request and had little bearing on the public’s ability to assess the court’s approval of the settlement.
The letter identified sections one through four, ten, and thirteen as containing litigation strategy, attorney mental impressions, and opinions about potential claims and possible legal developments. It identified sections sixteen and twenty as containing information provided by the plaintiff to counsel in anticipation of representation. The plaintiff argued that these materials were protected by the work-product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. The defendant did not oppose the motion.
Ruling
Judge Halpern granted the application. The order states: “Plaintiff may redact counsel’s retainer agreement, as proposed in Doc. 143-1.” The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Document 141. The order did not state that the entire retainer agreement could be filed under seal; it authorized the proposed redactions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.