Richards v. Kallish
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-09095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Richards v. Kallish, Judge Reznik partly granted and partly denied sealing requests for exhibits in a discovery dispute over attorney-client privilege.
The order affects defendants’ ability to keep Exhibits B, D, F, and G from public view, Plaintiff Nicole Richards’s access to those materials, and the public’s access to filings in the discovery dispute.
What happened
Richards v. Kallish involved defendants’ request to seal four exhibits filed with their briefing about whether certain documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. The documents were submitted as part of a discovery dispute.
Defendants argued that the exhibits contained confidential attorney-client communications. Plaintiff opposed sealing, arguing that the documents contained no privileged legal advice or sensitive information and were already in her possession.
Judge Victoria Reznik granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Exhibits B, F, and G were provisionally sealed while the privilege dispute remains pending. The request to seal Exhibit D was denied, but defendants may submit a version that redacts the emailed communications while leaving the attached Assignment unredacted.
The detailed version
- Richards v. Kallish · No. 7:22-cv-09095
- Cathy Seibel
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to seal Exhibits B, D, F, and G attached to their memorandum concerning their assertions of attorney-client privilege. The materials were filed in connection with a discovery dispute about the privilege applicable to documents responsive to Plaintiff Nicole Richards’s requests for admissions and document production. The court had previously ordered briefing on the scope and applicability of attorney-client privilege to patent counsel and on whether broader discovery of patent counsel was warranted.
Defendants argued that the exhibits contained communications protected by attorney-client privilege and that the privilege was an important interest that could justify sealing. Richards opposed the motion, arguing that the documents contained no privileged legal advice, sensitive business information, or personal information. She also argued that the documents were already in her possession, were not subject to a confidentiality obligation, and had been produced by her in discovery.
Legal standard
The court explained that filed materials relevant to the judicial process generally carry a strong presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, a court must make document-specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect a more important interest and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The presumption is generally weaker for filings connected to discovery disputes than for materials introduced at trial or filed with motions that could resolve the case.
The court further explained that the Second Circuit had indicated, but had not definitively held, that attorney-client privilege may qualify as an important interest sufficient to overcome the public-access presumption. Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney made to obtain or provide legal advice.
Ruling
The court found that Exhibits B, F, and G facially contained confidential emails between an attorney and client made to obtain or provide legal advice. It therefore ordered those exhibits provisionally sealed while the parties’ dispute over the scope and applicability of attorney-client privilege remains pending.
The court treated Exhibit D differently because it contained both an email that facially appeared subject to attorney-client privilege and an attached Assignment that was neither privileged nor confidential. The court denied the request to seal Exhibit D in its entirety, subject to defendants submitting a redacted version that hides the emailed communications but not the Assignment.
The court directed the Clerk to keep ECF Nos. 88-2, 88-6, and 88-7 under seal and accessible only to selected parties. It also directed the Clerk to keep ECF No. 88-4 under seal pending submission of a properly redacted version of Exhibit D, and to make ECF Nos. 88, 88-1, 88-3, 88-5, 88-8, and 88-9 publicly viewable. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the sealing motion at ECF No. 86.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.