Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-10256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Cardwell v. Davis Polk, Judge Woods granted in part defendants’ sealing motion and denied Cardwell’s request to require refiling documents.
The ruling affected the defendants’ ability to keep specified information sealed, Cardwell’s request for unredacted versions of two documents, third parties whose names and identifying information appeared in the exhibits, and public access to the court filings.
What happened
In Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, the defendants asked the court to clarify which deposition pages had to be filed publicly and to approve redactions in exhibits. They also sought to keep certain information sealed to protect third-party privacy and attorney-client communications.
The court allowed redactions of sensitive third-party names and identifying information. It also allowed redactions in three exhibits because they protected confidential legal advice, but found that the defendants had not adequately justified similar redactions in six other exhibits. The defendants had to provide more explanation or refile those exhibits with only third-party information redacted. The court denied Cardwell’s request to require refiling of two documents in unredacted form.
Judge Gregory H. Woods clarified that only the 120-page deposition excerpt previously filed as an exhibit had to be placed on the public docket. He granted in part the renewed motion to seal and denied Cardwell’s request regarding the two previously redacted documents.
The detailed version
- Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP · No. 1:19-cv-10256
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 23, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to clarify an earlier filing order and to approve or maintain redactions in documents. Their requests concerned: (1) filing the 120-page portion of Kaloma Cardwell’s deposition transcript that had been used as an exhibit, rather than the entire transcript; (2) redacting sensitive third-party information; (3) maintaining limited redactions of third-party information in certain exhibits; and (4) adding redactions in nine exhibits based on attorney-client privilege.
Cardwell did not appear to oppose the first three requests, but objected to the proposed attorney-client-privilege redactions. Cardwell also asked the court to require the defendants to refile two documents that had previously been filed in redacted form.
Court’s Analysis
The court clarified that its earlier order required public filing only of the portion of the deposition transcript that had been submitted as an exhibit, not the entire transcript.
The court applied the public-access test for court documents. It considered whether the materials were judicial documents, how important public access was for those materials, and whether interests favoring secrecy outweighed that access. The court explained that protecting attorney-client privilege can outweigh the usual presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public.
The court found that redacting sensitive third-party names and identifying information in the defendants’ exhibits was justified by the privacy interests of those third parties. It also found that redacting client names in Exhibits 30, 38, and 39 would prevent disclosure of confidential legal advice, so those redactions could remain sealed.
The court did not find adequate support for the privilege-based redactions in Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 17, 40, and 41. The court stated that several of those exhibits appeared to concern the timing of sending documents rather than legal advice. It also noted that Exhibits 13 and 14 included many third parties and that the defendants had not explained whether disclosure to those parties waived the privilege. The court further found that Exhibit 41 did not show why redacting client names was necessary to prevent disclosure of privileged advice concerning preparation of a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
Rulings
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted in part the defendants’ renewed motion to seal. Information highlighted in yellow in the exhibits could remain sealed, except that the relevant information in Exhibit 40 was highlighted in orange. The red-highlighted information in Exhibits 30, 38, and 39 could also remain sealed.
For the red-highlighted information in Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 17, 40, and 41, the defendants were ordered, within fourteen days, either to provide additional explanation showing why the redactions were necessary to protect attorney-client privilege or to refile the exhibits with only third-party names redacted, not client information.
The court denied Cardwell’s request to require the defendants to refile Dkt. Nos. 223-23 and 256-24 in unredacted form. The court reasoned that the documents had been produced in redacted form during discovery and that the redacted versions were the documents before the court for purposes of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 296.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.