Baliga v. Link Motion Inc.

Background

The court-appointed Receiver asked to file under seal attorney invoices submitted with its motion for court approval of its Accounting. The Receiver asserted that the invoices contained attorney work product and information protected by attorney-client privilege.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that both the common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. Judicial documents are filed materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court determined that these invoices qualified because it had relied on them in ruling on the Receiver’s motion for an Accounting.

The court found that the Receiver had not overcome the strong presumption of public access by identifying a compelling justification for sealing all of the invoices. Many entries did not mention litigation strategy or attorney-client communications. The court also reasoned that, to the extent some entries concerned litigation strategy or other confidential information, the Receiver had already acted on that information or strategy because the Receiver would be discharged after completing the Accounting. The court therefore found no clear privacy-related injury from disclosure sufficient to justify sealing the documents.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the Receiver’s motion to file the invoices under seal at ECF No. 379. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate that letter motion.