Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, P.C.

Background

This order concerns requests to seal documents in consolidated cases. Legal Recovery Associates LLC filed a motion for summary judgment and a related request to seal exhibits to the declaration of Andrew Solomon, along with parts of its brief and its statement of undisputed facts that discussed those exhibits. The plaintiff said it was seeking sealing because Brenes Law Group, P.C. had designated the information confidential during discovery.

Brenes Law Group later filed its own request to keep the confidential materials under seal. When opposing the plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion, however, defendants filed papers discussing much of the allegedly confidential information without sealing or redacting those papers. Legal Recovery Associates LLC then asked the court to deny defendants’ sealing request, unseal the affected documents, and require defendants to pay the cost of preparing redacted papers.

Court’s analysis

Brenes Law Group agreed that Exhibits 12, 13, 16, 37 through 39, 42 through 44, and 46 could be unsealed, but asked that Exhibits 14, 15, and 40 remain sealed. Exhibit 14 listed specific settlements obtained by Brenes Law Group for clients in product-liability lawsuits and the portions allocated to the firm as fees. Exhibit 15 was an email referring to one product-liability settlement. Defendants represented that the underlying settlements were confidential and that disclosure of specific settlement terms could expose the firm and its clients to financial penalties.

The court agreed that Exhibits 14 and 15 could properly remain sealed. It also ordered that the parties redact from their briefs and other papers any discussion that would allow a reader to identify the specific plaintiffs, defendants, or products involved in those settlements, unless the information was anonymized. Exhibit 40, a copy of defendants’ first amended disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, did not appear to contain confidential information and had never been sealed, so the court found no reason to seal it.

Ruling

The court ordered that the motions at Dockets 94, 104, 114, and 116 were each granted in part and denied in part. Exhibits 14 and 15 remained under seal, while the remaining sealed exhibits to the Solomon Declaration were to be unsealed. Legal Recovery Associates LLC had to promptly file new versions of its opening memorandum and statement with only the redactions required by the order. The court extended the plaintiff’s deadline to file its reply papers in support of summary judgment to February 22, 2024, assessed no sanctions, and directed the clerk to close the four motions.