Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke, Judge Cronan granted Plaintiff’s request to redact portions of a billing exhibit supporting fee recovery.
Plaintiff and the public’s access to the billing exhibit; the order permitted redaction of portions describing unrelated legal work.
What happened
In Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit and billing records to support costs and fees connected to Defendants’ discovery violations. The records also described other legal work in the case.
Plaintiff asked to redact portions of the billing exhibit that concerned work unrelated to the requested costs and fees. Plaintiff said those portions were irrelevant to the filing and protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.
Judge John P. Cronan granted Plaintiff’s request to redact portions of the exhibit. The order did not state that the court ruled on the amount of fees or costs owed.
The detailed version
- Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke · No. 1:20-cv-04765
- John Cronan
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
The opinion concerns Plaintiff’s filing of an affidavit and Exhibit 1 in compliance with the Court’s September 6, 2023 order. That earlier order partially granted Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants Alan Hanke and IOLO Global LLC for failing to comply with discovery orders during specified periods. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide documentation identifying reasonable incremental costs and fees and to explain which work related to obtaining discovery compliance.
Request to Redact
Exhibit 1 contained Hogan Lovells US LLP billing statements. According to Plaintiff’s submission, the invoices included work concerning multiple matters, including motions to dismiss and related bankruptcy filings, as well as discovery-related work. Plaintiff asked to redact portions describing work unrelated to the costs and fees sought under the September 6 order. Plaintiff stated that those portions were irrelevant to the submission and protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Plaintiff also stated that an unredacted copy would be provided to the Court.
Ruling
On October 4, 2023, Judge John P. Cronan granted Plaintiff’s request to redact portions of Exhibit 1. The order addressed only the redaction request; the provided opinion does not state that the Court determined the amount of any recoverable fees or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.