Roche Freedman LLP v. Jason Cyrulnik

Background

This order addressed the parties’ competing requests to seal numerous documents filed in connection with their cross-motions for summary judgment. The court stated that it was skeptical that sealing most of the filings was proper. It emphasized the presumption that judicial documents are available to the public, particularly when they are submitted at the summary-judgment stage. The court also criticized the parties’ submissions for not adequately narrowing or framing the issues.

Ruling on sealing requests

The court declined the parties’ varied sealing requests without prejudice. Documents that had already been filed under seal were to remain sealed pending a further order. The court planned to hold a hearing and then issue final rulings on which material could remain sealed. The parties would also have an opportunity to withdraw their existing exhibits and file more concise versions with substantially narrower redactions.

The parties were ordered to reevaluate their submissions and confidentiality designations and to provide two bound copies of proposed amended summary-judgment filings with highlighted redactions by 5:00 p.m. on August 10, 2023. The court scheduled a hearing for August 11, 2023, at which the parties were to identify specifically, and support with legal authority, the portions of their amended filings they believed should be sealed.

Legal guidance

The court explained that attorney-client privilege—the rule protecting certain confidential communications between a lawyer and client—does not automatically apply merely because lawyers participated in a communication, the communication occurred at a law firm, or it arose during litigation. The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving all of its elements. The court also distinguished attorney-client privilege from a lawyer’s broader duty to protect client confidences.

The court stated that alleged trade secrets and other confidential commercial information do not automatically receive protection from disclosure. A party seeking protection based on competitive harm must provide more than vague or conclusory allegations and must show that disclosure would cause a clearly defined and very serious injury. A confidentiality agreement between the parties, by itself, is not enough to overcome public access.

Regarding nonparties’ privacy, the court indicated that it would consider narrowly tailored redactions of names and identifying information, including for employees. It rejected wholesale sealing based merely on potentially embarrassing information. The court also warned Defendant that filing entire deposition transcripts instead of only relevant excerpts had complicated the matter and created unnecessary work. The amended filings were expected to include only material actually cited in the parties’ briefs and factual statements. The clerk was directed to terminate the gavels at ECF Nos. 469 and 478.