Altana Credit Opportunities Fund SPC v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Background

On July 5, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in a breach-of-contract action. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant does not defend the case. The Court previously determined that the terms of the bonds entitled the plaintiffs to reasonable and documented out-of-pocket expenses, including reasonable legal fees and court costs connected to investigating the default or enforcing the securities.

The Court had invited the plaintiffs to submit billing and expense records supporting a later request for fees and costs. The plaintiffs then moved for an award of $380,258.00 in legal fees and $13,822.63 in costs, for a total of $394,080.63. They submitted a declaration from David W. Bowker and contemporaneous billing and expense records.

Fees and Costs

The Court reviewed the submissions and found the requested fees reasonable given the complexity of the litigation and the fact that the plaintiffs paid their counsel’s bills at the stated rates. It also found the requested costs reasonable and related to the action.

The Court therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue an amended judgment reflecting the award.

Motion to Seal

The plaintiffs separately moved to seal portions of Exhibit A to Bowker’s declaration. The portions contained narrative descriptions of the work performed by their lawyers. The plaintiffs argued that the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege. These privileges generally protect certain confidential communications with lawyers and materials reflecting legal work or litigation strategy.

The Court balanced the public’s common-law right to inspect judicial documents against competing privacy and confidentiality interests. After reviewing the billing records privately, the Court determined that the detailed descriptions were privileged because disclosure would reveal information about trial strategy or legal work.

The plaintiffs did not seek to redact counsel’s billing rates or billed amounts. The Court stated that those details were not privileged. It nevertheless granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal the proposed portions of the billing records.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and granted the motion to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 78 and 80. Judge Analisa Torres entered the order on November 16, 2023.